Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order.)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 22 January

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 22 January

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report on his assessment of the results of the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Steady progress is being made, not least in the area of security co-operation. Experience has clearly demonstrated how views reflecting the interests of the minority can he taken into account without threatening the position of the majority or undermining United Kingdom sovereignty.

Mr. Ross: As one who is strongly in favour of the agreement, which is constantly being misrepresented by Unionist politicians in the Province, may I urge the Secretary of State to take the initiative himself and, with the aid of television, spell out to the citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom the exact terms of the agreement and how they could be developed if only the politicians in Northern Ireland would sit down and work together for the common good?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for the agreement and I take serious note of his point. There is no doubt that the best hope for the defeat of terrorism, which is so important to everybody in Northern Ireland, must be in closer and more effective co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. Everybody in Northern Ireland knows that, and this agreement offers us the best prospect of that being achieved.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who support the general Unionist position

believe that this agreement is the only practical instrument for greater co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that it can bring as great benefits to the Unionists in Northern Ireland as can greater co-operation between the communities there? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Unionist parties to come back to this Chamber to discuss democratically the way in which the agreement is working for their benefit?

Mr. King: I hope that they will recognise the need to return to this Chamber and make a constructive contribution here. If they do not, their arguments will not be listened to with any great respect. In looking at the progress of the agreement, I note that it offers the opportunity for the minority tradition to be respected and for minority views to be taken into account. It is greatly in the interests of the majority in Northern Ireland that the minority should feel that their views are fairly respected as well.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When does the Secretary of State now expect that the European convention on terrorism will be ratified by the Irish Republic? That was held out as one of the prizes of the Anglo-Irish Agreement 14 months ago. Will he take a £100 bet with me on this?

Mr. King: I shall not take up the offer in the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I do not intend to speculate on exchange rates. I have enough problems with other matters in Ireland without taking on that issue as well. I understand that, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the convention has been signed by the Minister of Justice in the Republic of Ireland. It has passed through the lower House and we hope that it will make the further progress necessary for ratification. The right hon. Gentleman will also have noted the encouraging news about a more effective response to the issue of extradition. Indeed, an item of news this morning tends once again to reflect the improved relationship and the improved attitude that flows from the agreement.

Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is possible to acknowledge and respect the Nationalist tradition and the Nationalist position in Northern Ireland without being a supporter of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does he not understand that to give the Irish Republic responsibility for representing Nationalists in discussions with Her Majesty's Government is intensely divisive and, in some ways, insulting to the Nationalists in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I respect my hon. Friend's views, and I agree that it is perfectly possible to respect the Nationalist tradition without being a subscriber to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, an awful lot of people in Northern Ireland have not been very good at doing that in recent years. The agreement enshrines the point that if there is to be greater harmony in Northern Ireland, it is important to recognise that within the Province there are people who hold a different point of view from that of the Unionist majority. It is in the interests of the Unionist majority that that should be recognised more publicly. If I understood correctly my hon. Friend's question, I hope that he will seek to urge the Unionist majority to recognise the proper rights and the respect that is due to the Nationalist minority.

Mr. Archer: I revert to the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). Does he


agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an abstract concept which exists, and can only exist, in the minds of human beings? Does it not follow that its importance lies wholly in what it leads human beings to do? Will the Secretary of State consider publishing a list of the things that it has led him and his Department to do which otherwise they probably would not have done, so that we may all make a rational judgment about it?

Mr. King: I shall certainly look at ways in which we might more effectively list the achievements and the effects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As for the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I note that there are many people in Northern Ireland, certainly in the majority community, who believe that security is overwhelmingly the most important aspect of the agreement. I could list improved performance on the seizure of arms, the apprehension of mortars, the recovery of explosives and more effective extradition procedures. I rest mainly on the judgment of the Chief Constable of the RUC. He says that the agreement provides him and his force with the best opportunity that they have had to improve security and co-operation. I pay attention also to the entirely opposite point of view. It is quite clear that the IRA regards the agreement as a serious threat to its operations.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the revival of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government have offered a round table conference on devolution and in advance of this are ready to facilitate informal talks among the parties. There is a wide measure of support for a return of greater responsibility to Belfast from Westminster and we have received a number of representations to that effect.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has no system of local government to compare with that in Britain, does he agree that it is unfortunate that there should not be a domestic forum in which Northern Ireland political activity could be induced in preference to the politics of the street and the politics of the courtroom?

Mr. Scott: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon, Friend. As he knows, we established the Assembly and encouraged and co-operated with it. We should like conditions to be created in which it could again play a constructive role in the affairs of Northern Ireland. It was only when the Assembly refused to undertake any of the work that had been laid on it by Parliament that we decided to dissolve it.

Mr. Bell: Will the Minister confirm that there is no question of returning to the status quo ante that existed prior to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that there will be no return to the Protestant ascendancy in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides sufficient scope for devolution for all the people of Northern Ireland? Is it not a fact that those who have ears should hear?

Mr. Scott: I assert once again that the Government believe that devolution remains the right objective for us to pursue, and as far as possible we shall pursue that

objective. As for the hon. Gentleman's first remark, it is absolutely clear that the only basis on which such arrangements could be introduced would be on what was acceptable to the representatives of constitutional politics who reflect both traditions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend make it plain that it is not necessary to resurrect the Assembly in order to reintroduce a greater measure of local government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Scott: That is certainly true, but perhaps my hon. Friend will remember what I have just said about the need for widespread acceptance of any changes in arrangements for Northern Ireland. The Government believe that devolution rather than increasing the powers of local government is more likely to achieve that.

Mr. Hume: In view of the call of the Secretary of State earlier this week for talks between the parties in Northern Ireland without preconditions about devolution, may I tell the Secretary of State that my party is ready to participate in such talks?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome that assurance as warmly as I do.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend agree that until those on the Unionist side of this problem appreciate that it is absolutely essential for them to participate locally, whether it is in an Assembly or in any other chamber, including this Chamber, it really will be impracticable to have revivals of Assemblies such as the Northern Ireland Assembly? We would all like to see it happen. The question is, will they let it happen?

Mr. Scott: The Government clearly understand the feelings of the Unionist community and their political representatives about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but I believe that it is folly for them to boycott this House and contacts with British Ministers on all of this. The sooner they get back to proper relationships in these matters, the better.

Street Marches and Demonstrations

Mr. Mallon: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the amount of police time devoted to policing street marches and demonstrations over the past 12 months.

Mr. Scott: Last year, between May and September, when the majority of such events occurred, it is estimated that a total of 334,000 man-hours were devoted to policing street marches and demonstrations.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister confirm that the Social Democratic and Labour party is the only party in the north of Ireland which recognises that there is a policing problem and that, because of this, it is the only party which has not caused problems for the police or put them in danger in the way that was outlined in the Minister's reply?

Mr. Scott: I very much hope that the party which the hon. Gentleman represents will be able to continue to develop its expressions of support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland and continue to support all those who believe that parades and marches should be conducted in a way which facilitates the efforts of the police to maintain law and order on these occasions.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that in grappling with these problems the RUC's men and women have conducted themselves in a wholly non-partisan, non-sectarian fashion; in short, that there is no such thing in Northern Ireland as Catholic policemen or Protestant policemen, but just policemen under the law? So is it not sad that there are those in high places, political or ecclesiastical, who refuse to encourage young men and women to join that non-political police force in the national interest?

Mr. Scott: I find it difficult to overstate my respect for the skill and professionalism of the RUC and the way in which it has handled these parades, marches and other public order situations in recent months. I would certainly encourage everyone in Northern Ireland who wants a peaceful society to give his wholehearted and unequivocal support to the RUC.

Mr. Spencer: Will my hon. Friend accept that those of us from constituencies from which are recruited the regiments which presently serve in Northern Ireland are dismayed at those pleas from politicians in Northern Ireland for people to assemble in large numbers, thereby increasing the risk to our troops serving there?

Mr. Scott: I agree wholeheartedly with that. I can only reiterate that whether it is the security forces, the Army or the police who are involved, they deserve the support and co-operation of all those who hope for a peaceful future in Northern Ireland.

Sampson Report

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the Sampson report.

Mr. Tom King: I have received a number of inquiries about the progress of Mr. Sampson's inquiry and the contents of his reports. As the House is aware, the first part of Mr. Sampson's report is now with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The second part is expected to be completed by Mr. Sampson shortly. As I informed the House, I shall wish to make a statement as soon as possible on any aspects of the report that fall within my responsibility.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware, however, that there is a degree of impatience at the fact that this report is always promised as coming shortly? When does he expect to make the statement that he promised over three months ago? During Mr. Sampson's inquiries, did he get round to interviewing the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and his deputy, as was the intention of the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester when he was involved?

Mr. King: With regard to the seond half of the question, my understanding is, yes, Sir. In regard to the first part, I clearly gave the information available to me in my answer. That is a matter for Mr. Sampson, who, I know, has been anxious to make the most thorough but speedy completion of his inquiries. I fully share the impatience that the hon. Member feels. It is obviously very important for the RUC and its good name that these matters are resolved at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State said that he would make a statement eventually on those parts of the report which fell within his responsibility. Will he explain to the House what those responsibilities are?

Mr. King: As I made clear in an earlier reply, aspects of the report which involve allegations of criminal offences, on which criminal charges may be brought, will have to follow the normal procedure. In so far as they affect organisation, management structure and wider policing issues, there may be aspects which fall clearly within my responsibility.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I appreciate the sensitivity of the matter for the Secretary of State. Does he intend to publish the report as far as possible? Will he contemplate publishing as much of it as possible on the lines of other reports relating to Northern Ireland which have been published in the past?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the report was commissioned by the Chief Constable of the RUC. He has forwarded the first part to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Clearly, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and conceivably my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, will be concerned with aspects of it. Police reports of this kind would not normally be published, but I hear what the hon. Member says. Obviously, I am anxious that everything possible should be done to clear the matter up fully and to deal with it effectively, but I am in some difficulties in replying fully because I have not myself seen the contents of the report.

Mr. Archer: In view of the disclosure earlier this week by Mr. Stalker that he would have remained in the police force had he been permitted to continue the inquiry into the RUC, is it not vital in the interests of everyone that, irrespective of the Sampson report, the public should be told quickly what inquiries Mr. Stalker was making and what conclusions he had reached, otherwise is speculation not inevitable that he was investigating something important and that some people in high positions wanted to prevent his investigation?

Mr. King: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question illustrates all too clearly the importance of getting as much as possible established in the public domain at the earliest opportunity and of resolving the matters as early as possible, otherwise such rumour and speculation will spread. The House should remember that the question whether Mr. Stalker was or was not available for the inquiry was not a matter for me but for the chief constable of Manchester, who advised the Chief Constable of the RUC that Mr. Stalker was no longer available, so alternative arrangements had to be made. Having said that, I certainly recognise that while Mr. Stalker was not able to continue, the whole of his team which was working on it did continue its work, albeit under the direction of Mr. Sampson.

Intergovernmental Security Divisions

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on meetings he has had with Ministers in the Government of the Republic of Ireland on co-operation on security matters.

Mr. Scott: A special meeting of the intergovernmental conference was held on 31 October last year to discuss cross-border security co-operation. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I frequently discuss this subject with members of the Irish Government at regular meetings of the intergovernmental conference. My right hon. Friend also met the Taoiseach on 28 November. It would not be appropriate to disclose details of those discussions, but both Governments are determined to press ahead in further developing security co-operation.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that there is now excellent co-operation from the Republic on security and that those Unionist politicians who say otherwise are deliberately and mischievously misleading their supporters?

Mr. Scott: All I can say is that there is improved security co-operation. The foundations have been laid for further improvements, but it will be the implementation of the reports which have now been agreed between the RUC and the Garda and which have been discussed by Ministers, that will lead to that further improvement that we all wish to see.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: If there is this improvement—and any improvement in security co-operation is welcome—why is it that even the smallest infringement of the border by our forces in pursuit of those whom the Taoiseach has called the common enemy is built up into an international incident in Dublin?

Mr. Scott: There is another question on the Order Paper on that subject, so I imagine that it would not be proper for me to go into great detail now. Our troops are warned about incursions into the Republic of Ireland and genuinely do their best to avoid such incursions. However, when they are in pursuit of terrorists there are occasionally incursions. We regret those and I can understand the sensitivity of the Irish Government about other troops being on their territory.

Mr. McNamara: If Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland conspire to make incursions into the Republic of Ireland and plead guilty to unlawful assembly, are they guilty of an offence within Northern Irish law for committing a conspiracy to invade a foreign country?

Mr. Scott: That would be a matter for the courts to decide.

Sir John Farr: While everyone welcomes the cooperation north and south of the border, has my hon. Friend analysed the situation that may arise shortly with a change of Government in the Republic?

Mr. Scott: We have signed an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and embarked on the work of an international conference in which cross-border security co-operation is an important aspect. It is not for me to speculate about the possible results of a change of Administration. However, I hope that the co-operation which benefits everyone within the island of Ireland will be continued.

Political Leaders (Discussions)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with political leaders from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had since Christmas with Northern Ireland political leaders.

Mr. Tom King: I maintain regular contact with the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, but not at present with the leaders of the Unionist parties, who have unfortunately not felt able to have talks with me or my ministerial colleagues. On 28 November 1986 I met the Taoiseach and on 8 December presided as joint chairman over a regular meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Canavan: Has the Secretary of State taken the trouble to sound out Opposition politicians in the Republic as to what is likely to happen to the so-called Anglo-Irish Agreement in the event of a change of Government in the Republic in the forthcoming general election?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening to the answer given earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It may come as a shock to the hon. Gentleman, but I entirely agree with the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In the absence of withdrawal or revision of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, how does my right hon. Friend propose to end the deadlock in cooperation and communication with the political leaders of the overwhelming majority of the population of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I entirely recognise, as my hon. Friend has emphasised, the importance of re-establishing a sensible dialogue. The absence of such dialogue has not been to the advantage of the Unionists of Northern Ireland in the past year or to the advantage of those for whom they seek to speak. I have made it absolutely clear that the evidence is now before them that the agreement has not threatened their position or undermined the position of the majority, nor has it infringed the sovereignty about which they are concerned. I hope they will recognise that after the sterile futility of past months there is now good sense in seeking to engage in talks on some basis. I have made it clear that I am willing to enter into any discussions without any preconditions respecting the opposition and hostility that many may feel to the agreement.

Mr. Alton: Arising from the discussions which the Secretary of State has had with politicians in Northern Ireland, in how many local authorities Unionist politicians are fully playing their part despite their original opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does he accept that politicians on the Alliance Benches join him in hoping that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland will play its part here in the Chamber again as quickly as possible?

Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I very much endorse the second part of his question. However, I am afraid that I am unable to help him in answer to the first part of his question, because it is very difficult at the moment to know the answer to that. The picture is very confused at the moment. However, it is quite clear that the policy of abstention, adjournment or whatever alternative versions are given to it in local authorities, has been utterly pointless. It has achieved nothing except to disadvantage local government electors and ratepayers in those areas. That point is becoming increasingly clear to sensible people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cormack: Are not members of the majority population in Northern Ireland aware of how many friends, and how much influence, are being lost by the boycott on the part of their leaders both of Parliament and of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues?

Mr. King: There is a strange concept among some people in Northern Ireland of loyalty to the Queen but of not ascribing loyalty to Parliament and any Government. People must understand that under our constitution the Queen in Parliament means that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is, in our finest tradition, the place where ultimately grievances or concerns can be raised.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have political leaders in Northern Ireland ever raised with the Secretary of State the allegations of Captain Holroyd and Mr. Colin Wallace? Is it true that those allegations were communicated to the Prime Minister in 1984? Is there any substance to those allegations?

Mr. King: The answer to the first part of the question, on which the rest of the question hangs, is no, Sir.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we had a debate upstairs lasting all of one minute, in which the American £50 million donation was given to this country, whether we wanted it or not? What discussions have so far taken place with the leaders of both sides in Northern Ireland on the disposition and spending of that money?

Mr. King: The structure under which the international fund is set up is that of an independent board. It is separate from Government, and the board is about to embark on its task. I know that a number of people have made applications to it and I am sure that it can make a most useful contribution. We recognise it as a most remarkable gesture made in a spirit of goodwill and appreciation by our ancient ally, and by good friends of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Hume: Is the Secretary of State aware that had I met him since Christmas I would have raised with him the fact that the Western area health board has introduced a 12-hour working day for nurses and told them that if they do not accept they will be sacked? Is this not outrageous, and will he take steps to correct it?

Mr. King: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman's supplementary follows from the main question, but I shall look into the point.

Dr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend not only confirm that his door is open for discussions with members of all political parties in the Province, but make a positive step to encouraging such dialogue, because it is only through dialogue that any success will be achieved?

Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for what he says. If people had any doubts about it, the events of the past year have proved that alternative routes offer no prospects of a sensible outcome. People can learn only from their experiences, and I hope they will realise that it is possible to have sensible talks and that they need not be afraid that, by talking to me, they will somehow undermine the principle of their position. We shall see whether, as sensible people, we can sit down and find a better way forward that will benefit all the people of the Province.

Prison Officers Association

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Prison Officers Association of Northern Ireland; and what issues were discussed.

Mr. Scott: In view of my day-to-day responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland, I normally represent my right hon. Friend at meetings with the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association. I last met national and Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association representatives on 4 October 1985, when we discussed future employment of prison officers and their roles, prison regimes, operational matters, and the programme for opening Maghaberry prison and amalgamating the two prisons at Maze.

Mr. Cox: In view of that answer, which shows that some 18 months have passed since the Minister met prison officers in Northern Ireland, may I suggest that he should, as a matter of urgency, seek to meet them soon? Is he aware of their deep concern as to their security and that of their families, in view of threats often made against them? Is he further aware of the complaint by them about the lack of modern facilities when on duty in prisons in Northern Ireland? As these are urgent matters, should not the Minister give them his attention soon?

Mr. Scott: I am always ready to meet representatives of the Prison Officers Association. They have only to ask to have a meeting. There may be an early opportunity to meet their representatives.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to visit the Republic of Ireland to discuss the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent talks he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland on negotiation of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Tom King: We regularly meet representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference. The last meeting was on 8 December and I have placed the joint statements issued after this and other meetings of the conference in the Library.

Mr. Parry: Does the Secretary of State agree that the agreement legitimises the border for the first time in history and that it is the cause of a wave of violence by paramilitary groups? Does he also agree that the conduct of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and his colleagues recently bears out the fears of Labour Members who voted against the agreement?

Mr. King: I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the agreement legitimising the border and I know that that is a view advanced by many. It confirms the position of the majority in Northern Ireland, in that they are not at any risk of being dragooned into a united Ireland against their wishes. That reassurance of the majority is an important component of the agreement, and, coupled with respect for the traditions and interests of the minority, is the right basis on which a better long-term understanding can be reached within Northern Ireland.

Mr. Flannery: Was the question of the unsatisfactory nature of the Diplock courts or the question of having three judges instead of one, which surely would be more satisfactory, raised? What is transpiring in that general direction?

Mr. King: The Diplock courts and the problems of terrorist trials which must be conducted without a jury, as is the position in a current case in Dublin, have been discussed. I made clear the Government's position on those matters in an earlier reply, to which I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr. Gow: Do Her Majesty's Ministers and Ministers of the Government of the Irish Republic believe that it is possible to govern one part of the United Kingdom differently from the rest, save with the consent of a majority of the people who are to be governed differently?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will know that there has been no change in the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland during the course of this Government. It is precisely one of the strengths of the agreement that it does not affect the method of government of Northern Ireland, while at the same time respecting the interests and traditions of the minority.

Mr. Winnick: There is certainly a curious alliance in the House against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that there might be a case for having a referendum on this unique situation, both in the Republic of Ireland, if that was the wish of the Irish authorities, and in Britain and Northern Ireland? If that referendum secured, as indeed it would, a large majority, would it not strengthen the agreement?

Mr. King: I agree that there can be curious alliances in matters affecting Northern Ireland, and perhaps I know that as well as anyone. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, because he will know that there have been suggestions of an application for some form of referendum, and one of the questions that it would raise is what should be the constituency for that referendum.

Mr. Bell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had the full support of this House, as it had the full support of the Irish Dail? Therefore, it has the full support of two sovereign peoples. Is it not a fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides as much opportunity for the Unionist community to reflect its traditions and history as it does for the Nationalists? There is something in the Anglo-Irish Agreement for both traditions. Is that not the case?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I certainly endorse his remark that the overwhelming majority both in this House and in the Parliament of the Republic, and the much wider international community, welcomed this measure. The tragedy is clearly that at present Unionists do not recognise that the real beneficiaries of a more willing acceptance and understanding of the fairness of their position in relation to the minority community would be the majority community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reconciling process which the Anglo-Irish Agreement is about is not helped by inflamatory language such as that deployed earlier this week by Viscount Brookeborough when he described Cardinal O'Fiaich as "an evil prelate"?

Mr. King: There is a responsibility on all people in positions of influence to take care not to inflame passions. It is the easiest thing in the world to excite hatred in Northern Ireland, which often leads in other circumstances to extremely nasty acts and incidents. Everyone in positions of responsibility needs to exercise great care in the language that they use.

Harland and Wolff (AOR Contract)

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel contract at Harland and Wolff.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): Construction work on the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel is scheduled to commence later this year. Harland and Wolff's performance and costs in building this ship will be subject to a stringent system of financial and performance controls which will be monitored by independent consultants.

Mr. Brown: As the Northern Ireland Office is not impartial in this matter will the Minister name the independent consultants that his Department is using to monitor the contract and tell the House what arrangements are being made for independent scrutiny of that contract?

Mr. Viggers: The consultants are Touche Ross management consultants. The hon. Gentleman inquired about the availability of the report. The terms of reference given to the consultants extend beyond the specific question of AOR monitoring and it is not appropriate to release what is effectively a commercially confidential contract. However, I can confirm that Harland and Wolff's performance and costs in builiding AOR will be monitored strictly in accordance with the terms of the Secretary of State's announcement on 24 April 1986.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next meet the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Unionist parties in Northern Ireland on the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: Unfortunately, the leaders of the Unionist parties feel unable to have discussions with me, but I am obviously aware of several concerns felt by members of the Unionist parties and I remain ready to discuss with them the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or any other matters, at any time. I meet the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party regularly and hope to meet them again soon.

Mr. Archer: As the whole purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to facilitate discussions with the Republic, would it not be pointless if it led to the termination of discussions with everyone else? Will the Secretary of State confirm that any proposal emerging from the Intergovernmental Conference will be the subject of consultations with any party or group in Northern Ireland


which wishes to express a view on the merits? For that purpose, will it be made known in good time before the proposal is implemented?

Mr. King: I am more than ready completely to endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. One of the least truthful statements in Northern Ireland is that somehow the Unionists are debarred from putting forward their views and opinions. I have made it absolutely clear that I would welcome them at any time, and I hope that they will take up those opportunities.

Mr. Soley: When the Secretary of State next meets the Unionist parties, will he reiterate that no agreement jointly negotiated between the British and Irish Governments can be destroyed by threat of force or undermined by a veto applied by any group or political party? Can he make it absolutely clear to them that the will of two democratically elected Parliaments of Britain and Ireland is sovereign in these matters?

Mr. King: Of all the people in Northern Ireland, I would have thought previously that it was least necessary to remind Unionists that the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign and that its views should be respected.

Border Incursions

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice is being given to the security forces concerning recent incursions into Southern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: Police and Army commanders are well aware of the importance of avoiding incursions. Policemen and soldiers, particularly those belonging to newly arrived units, are advised frequently of the need to avoid incursions into the Republic of Ireland when operating close to the border.

Mr. Bruinvels: While thanking my hon. Friend for his detailed reply, may I ask him to confirm that it is not just a matter of troops from Northern Ireland going into the South, but of troops from Southern Ireland crossing the border into the North? We should have a give and take policy, and it is rather unfair that some legal authorities in Southern Ireland are promoting the fact that some of our troops have lost their way on the border.

Mr. Scott: It is important to recognise that in effectively carrying out their duties the security forces of both jurisdictions have to operate right up to the border. The troops are, of course, forbidden to cross the border, but incursions into both jurisdictions take place from time to time as a consequence of the joint pursuit of the common enemy of both security forces—the terrorist. I should mention that this matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Chris Smith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister content that her Government preside over a society in which the chairman of Guinness can earn £350,000 a year while thousands of pensioners—[Interruption.]—are freezing because they cannot afford to heat their homes? Is such a gulf between the rich and poor not an inevitable consequence of the Prime Minister's and her Government's philosophy and system of values?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are to have a reply to a private notice question later today.
The way in which this Government have looked after the needs of pensioners in severe weather is greatly in excess of the services and amounts that any other Government have previously given. The severe weather payments are on top of the scale rates for heating in the supplementary benefit payments, and on top of the heating additions that are paid regularly throughout the year.

Mr. Couchman: In the present dreadful spell of cold weather, perhaps Kent has suffered as badly as anywhere. Many shops in my constituency are virtually out of food and access to the Medway towns is almost impossible. Movement is very difficult indeed. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to whether we should declare a state of emergency? That could help the situation. Will my right hon. Friend further consider giving permission for the unfettered use of troops, without consideration of budget?

The Prime Minister: I do not consider that a declaration of a state of emergency would be appropriate. Of course, we shall see how help can be brought in to move in food and necessary supplies to people who are without them.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the commendable view expressed in the Financial Times this morning that self-regulation can work only if people who are supervised have a sense of obligation towards the system and if that is greater than the desire to win their way in any particular case? In view of the widespread disquiet about financial dealings, including in the City itself, will the Prime Minister now take steps to make the Securities and Investments Board a statutory body with powers to investigate and prosecute any cases of abuse during mergers and takeovers?

The Prime Minister: I think not at present. Most people will accept that action has been taken very quickly indeed in setting up inspections under the Companies Act by Board of Trade inspectors. We must await the result of the report. It is far too early to go from the present voluntary self-regulation and conclude that we should go to a full statutory system. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Financial Times. He will find that there were leaders in overseas papers, including in the United States, saying that the speed at which action has been taken under the voluntary system has sometimes exceeded the swiftness of action under any statutory system.

Mr. Kinnock: From the Prime Minister's answer, are we to believe that if the current evidence of gross abuse were to continue we would, in a short time, have the introduction of a statutory system so that full force could be brought to bear against those who are abusing their knowledge and office in the course of mergers or takeovers, or are we to believe that because statutory


schemes have not been introduced elsewhere there is no circumstance in which the Prime Minister would wish one to be introduced in Britain?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman concludes too much. Insider dealing was not even a criminal offence under the Labour Government, yet it is now. But then, he is always expecting something totally different from us. We have made insider trading a criminal offence and, the right hon. Gentleman knows, criminal prosecutions are a matter for the appropriate authorities and not for the Government. Board of Trade investigations are implemented under the Companies Act and come under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Inspections have been implemented very quickly, and they are now under way.

Mr. Kinnock: The value of mergers and takeovers has multiplied tenfold during the time that the Prime Minister has been in office, so these matters are of great importance to hundreds and thousands of people, both inside and outside the City. The Prime Minister introduced deregulation and is now having to clean up the mess left by the abuses of that system. Will she make the SIB statutory in order to help with that process?

The Prime Minister: I answered that question in my initial reply to the right hon. Gentleman. There are two factors. First, insider trading is now a criminal offence although it was not a criminal offence under a Labour Government. Secondly, there is now voluntary regulation, and I believe that there are powers in statute eventually for Ministers to take over if voluntary regulation turns out not to be right. However, it is much too soon to judge. Action has been taken very quickly by Board of Trade inspectors under the present system. They are in the process of establishing the facts. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman thought about it, he might agree that it is as well to establish the facts before drawing any conclusions.

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend has shown her great concern for those most in need by acting swiftly to help to provide the additional heating allowance. Does she not therefore utterly condemn the actions of staff at the main post office in East Sheen in my constituency in closing their doors for the past five working days because, they claim, it is too cold to work? They have thereby locked out claimants, including pensioners, thus ensuring that they cannot cash their benefit cheques. As a result, those people cannot buy food or fuel——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Hanley: Those people are therefore having to trudge in the snow and slush to sub post offices that are prepared to open.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. However, we would all wish to praise and thank those who have gone to work, despite the difficult circumstances. They have been determined to carry on with their jobs and to get medical help, supplies or cash to those who need them. Perhaps that serves to highlight those who have not made such efforts.

Dr. Owen: In view of the widespread concern about the young single homeless, which will go on long after the cold weather snap, will the Prime Minister reconsider the board and lodging regulations as well as the possibility of giving special help to local councils for emergency programmes

to help young people? It is no answer to say that council houses are still standing vacant, because under the Act councils do not have responsibility for the young single homeless. There is a major gap in our social provision, and some action would be very welcome.

The Prime Minister: I think that it is an answer to say that there is a good deal of council house property standing vacant. If housing is not being used, it could obviously be put to use for homeless families. It is because the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is an answer that he tried to avoid it in his question.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend please bear in mind that although the existence of a statutory body in the form of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States did not prevent the Boesky scandal, some of us have felt for some time that the increasing internationalisation of financial markets, with all the complexities and difficulties for national regulation that they bring, means that we should now look towards a statutory body to help with these matters?

The Prime Minister: It is too soon to conclude that we should change the present system, which has been in operation for only a short time. As my hon. Friend knows, there is provision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take statutory powers. However, we should go further with the present system before we conclude that we should go to a statutory one.

Miss Maynard: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Maynard: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a scandal that, 15 months after her Government promised to review the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, the Home Office still prevaricates? Does she further agree that nothing undermines the rule of law more than keeping innocent people in gaol because authorities do not have the courage to admit that they made a mistake? Will she reassure the House today that her Government are conducting a genuine investigation and not a cover-up?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to review that case carefully and will inform the House of his conclusions when he has reached them.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Is there any country in which unmployment is falling faster than in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Suffice it to say that, on a seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment has fallen here for the fifth successive month. That is good news. We hope that that will continue, although we are bound to have problems. It is also good news that unemployment is falling in the north, the north-west, the west midlands and Wales. I hope that the whole House will welcome that news.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Has the Prime Minister seen this morning's report by the Royal Institute of Public Administration, which dubiously clears her of politicising the top echelons of the Civil Service? In view of that report and all the implications, together with the criticism that has been made of her decision not to allow civil servants to appear before Select Committees and truthfully answer questions without the permission of the Secretary of State, will she now reconsider her previous answer and allow civil servants the openness that is recommended in the report?

The Prime Minister: I do not wholly accept the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Select Committee asked how far civil servants could properly answer for their own conduct in a particular case. There are certain strong traditions in relation to that. I am sure that people would not wish to undermine those traditions or in any way to turn the House into a kind of conduct court when they have their own disciplinary procedure. With regard to what the Royal Institute of Public Administration said, we should pay tribute to the impartial administration and the traditions and standards of the Civil Service.

Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the comments made recently by a senior political analyst on local radio in Bristol to the effect that the loony Left is damaging the Labour party, that the economy is in reasonable shape and that the Conservatives will win the next election? The senior political analyst concerned was the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks).

The Prime Minister: The point in that most excellent dissertation with which I wish to quarrel is that it is not the loony Left but the Left in power in local authorities. That is the way in which the present Labour party acts when in power.

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davis: As the Prime Minister is so pleased with the latest unemployment figures, will she now confirm that the cumulative effect of the past five months has been to reduce the unemployment rate from 11·4 per cent. a year ago to 11·3 per cent. in December? As she is so easily pleased with the figures, is she aware that my constituents think that it is because she does not really care?

The Prime Minister: Hon. Gentlemen have been mouthing the phrase "people care", but we know that that is not the case from the record of Opposition Members on many social service issues and by the way in which they did not hesitate to reduce the value of pensioners' savings by inflation. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that unemployment has fallen for the fifth month running and that over 1 million more jobs have been created in the past three years. That is a good record and the prospects for the economy look good for the coming months.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to observe how the number of building society depositors has increased since she came to power? Does she agree that those 28 million investors set a good example of thrift and that their savings would be whittled away by the inflationary policies advanced by Opposition Members?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The number of building society investors has increased enormously. It is part of the wider distribution of property in terms of housing, personal savings and possibly shares. That is part of the Conservative party's and the Government's fundamental philosophy. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that under this Government savers, who are so important because without savings we do not have the means of the investment that we wish to see, have had a good deal and will continue to do so, and that under a Labour Government they would have a very bad deal because of the Labour party's inflationary policies, which would rob the savings of their value.

Guinness plc

Mr. Robin Cook: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will extend the investigation into the affairs of Guinness in the light of recent events at that company and its corporate advisers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): The inspectors appointed to look into the affairs of Guinness already have wide terms of reference which enable them to investigate any matter concerning Guinness and to require any persons, including its corporate advisers, whom they consider to have relevant information to give evidence to them. As and when I receive any material suggesting misconduct in a matter not concerning Guinness, I will consider it and take any appropriate action. I shall certainly not hesitate to make a further appointment, of inspectors if the circumstances justify it.

Mr. Cook: Is the Minister aware that it is believed in the City that as many as 90 million shares in Guinness may have been bought during last year's bid on the basis of improper indemnities by Guinness? Is he aware that the trail of the slush fund with which they were financed leads through some of the most hallowed and established names in the City? Is it not now clear that we are in the middle of the biggest City scandal for a generation, so big that even the public relations talents of Sir Gordon Reece could not keep it under wraps?
Does the Minister recognise that the blame for those events cannot be shuffled off on to a few individuals who have been thrown overboard? Does he recognise that the Government have encouraged the takeover stampede by their relaxed attitude to such bids, of which today's announcement about Pilkingtons is merely the most astonishing? Does he recognise that the Government have achieved only a trickle of prosecutions for fraud in the City in stark contrast to their attitude to fraud in the social security system? Is it not clear that the Government have created a climate in the City in which anything goes?
Can the Minister assure the House that the Department of Trade and Industry inquiry was not discussed when the Prime Minister attended a private lunch last week at the London office of Bain and Co. which employed the financial director who has just been dismissed by Guinness?
Given the scale of the scandal and the £200 million of improper share dealing, why did the public authorities apparently not detect anything wrong until tipped off nine months later by the American authorities? Surely this week's events must have shaken even the Minister's complacency about leaving the regulation of the City to self-regulation by the City? Why does not the Minister admit that we desperately and urgently need an independent public watchdog to restore law and order in the City of London?

Mr. Howard: The House will not expect me to comment on the circumstances presently being inquired into by the independent inspectors who have been appointed to look into the affairs of Guinness. I would not wish to take any step that would be likely to impede their investigations. However, of one thing there can be no doubt: there is no

question of keeping anything under wraps. If anything merits investigation, it will be investigated fully, properly, thoroughly and effectively.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has come out with the hoary and entirely misconceived assertion that prosecutions for insider dealing are inadequate. He knows that the record of prosecutions that have taken place since insider dealing was made a criminal offence by this Government leaves something to be desired. That is precisely why we have taken powers of an unprecedented nature in the Financial Services Act 1986. Those powers require people to answer questions put to them by investigators, even if such questions will incriminate them, on pain of punishment for contempt of court. That is a measure of the Government's determination to root out malpractice and misconduct in the City whenever evidence of it comes to our attention.

Sir Alex Fletcher: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the expeditious use he has made of the new powers available to Companies Acts inspectors. As the major question raised by this sordid affair is the legality of the Guinness takeover of Distillers, a matter that may well involve the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts for many months, what steps does my hon. and learned Friend propose to take to protect the interests of the shareholders involved against any actions by Guinness that may further prejudice their interests as shareholders?

Mr. Howard: I cannot comment on the affairs of Guinness. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is now under new direction and I have no doubt that those responsible will take his comments to heart.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that there is already sufficient information in the public domain to make it quite clear that the whole affair stinks and is leaving a dreadful aroma over the whole of the City? Does he also agree that we have seen enough information already to cause deep offence to many people in the City and other parts of the country and, therefore, will he tell the House what resources are being made available to carry out the investigation with the utmost expediency? Can the Minister give some indication as to when he expects the investigation to be completed and say that he will make a full statement to the House when it has been completed and reported to him?

Mr. Howard: The investigations are being conducted by independent inspectors who are not subject to any constraints on the resources available to them. They are well aware of the need to complete the investigations as soon as possible, subject only to the need to carry out a full, thorough and effective inquiry. I fully expect that, as soon as they report, the report will be made public.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is offensive in principle and injurious in practice that a famous company such as Pilkingtons that can promise to revive the prosperity of the north of England should be put in peril by the predatory activities of another company such as BTR?

Mr. Speaker: We should have questions about Guinness, not Pilkingtons.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that we are talking not about a few individuals who have done something wrong but about


some of the most prominent names in the City of London, such as merchant banks and solicitors, as well as those who have responsibilities for the stockbroking aspects of this matter? Dealing with such prominent names is rather different from dealing with a few individuals who might be castigated at some stage in the future.
Is the Minister aware that many of us suspect that none of this might have come out had it not been for information gathered from the United States that set off the whole investigation? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we are not talking about small matters? We need proper regulation of such problems if the City of London is to hold anything like the place that many of us expected for it when deregulation started.

Mr. Howard: I cannot comment on the source of the information which led to the appointment of inspectors in this case, but I can say that as soon as that information came to the attention of the Department we acted speedily and promptly to appoint independent inspectors to investigate matters.
As for the more general regulation of the City, the regime provided for under the Financial Services Act 1986 will prove to be effective. However, we shall scrutinise with care the report of the Guinness inspectors, and we shall be anxious to learn any lessons from it that we can.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time. We have a further private notice question on Pilkington. I shall allow two questions from either side.

Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend and his inspectors on the way in which they have conducted their duties thus far. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that I was the first Member in the House to raise the matter of how Guinness and Morgan Grenfell were behaving? Does he also agree with the comments that I made on 25 July 1985 regarding that, and the way that the takeover panel had fallen far from the standards required for self-regulation? I support self-regulation, but when one finds that the individuals who are carrying out the duties are falling short, it is right that it should he commented on.
I also draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that one of the few hon. Members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should ask questions, not make statements.

Mr. Walker: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is one of the few Opposition Members who have been consistent in this

matter and is to be congratulated, unlike others, such as the Leader of the Opposition, who supported Guinness, and who are now being noisy about it?

Mr. Howard: The Opposition have been far from consistent in their approach to these matters, but I can confirm that my hon. Friend has been vigorous in drawing material to the attention of the Department.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the potential for further job losses if Guinness continues with its present programme, especially in Scotland, will the Minister—or better still the Secretary of State—use his influence to invite Guinness to withdraw its notorious rationalisation programme, especially since it flies in the face of all the pledges that were given by Mr. Saunders during the takeover campaign?

Mr. Howard: These are matters for the company. I am sure that it will take all the circumstances into account in making its decision.

Sir Anthony Grant: As during many years of Labour Government absolutely nothing was done to legislate against such scandals, will my hon. and learned Friend reject as humbug what the Opposition say? Nevertheless, does he agree that in recent years some people have entered the City who are long on cunning but short on morals? Is it not a great pity that some of the energy and talent used in shuffling paper in takeover deals is not used to increase existing productive business?

Mr. Howard: For the most part, standards in the City remain high. It is important that we should acknowledge the great contribution which the City makes to our economy, earning £7·5 billion for Britain in net foreign exchange in the latest year for which full figures are available. That makes a significant contribution to our productive economy.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister accept that the House is not really persuaded by his argument that this is a little local difficulty involving only insider trading? Will he give us, particularly in Scotland, some assurances on the possibility of going down the line and looking at the activities of the Saunders syndrome in relation to the takeover of Bell's? Many Labour Members, including myself, who were anxious about those activities and received some assurances on headquarters, employment opportunity and so on—I have a substantial Bell's plant in my constituency—would like to know the Government's intention in that regard.

Mr. Howard: I have already described to the House the inspectors' terms of reference, and they are very wide.

BTR and Pilkington Bros.

Mr. John Evans: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his decision not to refer the bid by BTR for Pilkington to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I decided, in accordance with the recommendation of the director general of Fair Trading, not to refer the merger between BRT plc and Pilkington Brothers plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
I accepted the director general's advice that the merger did not raise significant competition issues. Like the director general, I gave careful consideration to concerns expressed about the effect of the proposed takeover on Pilkington's management philosphy and commercial direction. While accepting that these are important issues, I believe that the shareholders of Pilkington are best placed to make a judgment on them.

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision not to refer the bid has been greeted with widespread dismay by the entire Pilkington work force throughout Great Britain? Will he accept that the involvement of Morgan Grenfell in the bid, which is already deeply involved in the Guinness scandal, means that it would have been in everyone's best interest, particularly the right hon. Gentleman's, if the bid had been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, particularly in view of the 20p surge in Pilkington's share price last night?
The right hon. Gentleman informs the House that there is no competition policy involved. He also states that Pilkington's management philosophy and the commercial direction of the company are best left to the shareholders. Who then speaks for the national interest and for the interests of the work force and its jobs? Pilkington's work force throughout Great Britain intends to step up its compaign against the bid by BTR because it recognises that the bid has no industrial logic. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman recognise that?

Mr. Channon: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's views. Indeed, he came with a deputation to discuss the matter with me and I listened with great care to the arguments that he presented. What I have decided today is entirely consistent with the policy announced as long ago as July 1984 and applied ever since—that references are made primarily on competition grounds. I express no views on the merits of the BTR bid for Pilkington, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's influence and the influence of those for whom he speaks will be powerful in convincing people on how to vote.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the disappointment of many of the Pilkington employees in the north-west at the non-referral of BTR's bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? However, some Conservative Members appreciate that there was a major lack of a monopoly element that would have provided him with the major ground to do so. Will he bear in mind that, through research and development and hard work, a loyal work

force in Pilkington has made that company the premier glass manufacturer in the world? That loyalty will not easily be transferred to a conglomerate run by BTR? Will he ensure that the Pilkington shareholders will, having seen the impressive profit forecasts and long-term stable investment, be allowed to maintain their investment free from the sort of interference that we saw in the Guinness bid for Distillers in the recent past?

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's views, and I know that he has strong feelings about this matter. I am sure that he will make his views widely known. It is now for the Pilkington shareholders to weigh up the arguments. They will have to decide on the best long-term prospects for the future of the company. The whole House accepts what my hon. Friend says about the great achievements of Pilkington. The shareholders have an important decision to take about the best long-term prospects for the company.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that this decision is inconsistent with the decisions about the Royal Bank of Scotland and Sothebys which were referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Does he agree that other factors should be taken into account and that the rules should be changed so that matters of this sort can be considered? This takeover would be a calamity in an area where already one person in five is out of work. Does he also agree that, when a company has made itself vulnerable because of its investment in research and development, it is unacceptable to allow it to be preyed on by a predator like BTR?

Mr. Channon: The cases cited by the hon. Gentleman were before July 1984. I recall that years ago there were many complaints about the unpredictability of reference policy and a wish to have a predictable set of criteria on which one could judge whether cases were likely to be referred. As I have told the House, what I have said today is entirely consistent with the policy announced in July 1984 that references are made primarily on competition grounds. There have been almost no exceptions to that rule.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Whatever the difficulties facing my right hon. Friend—and they are real difficulties—is he aware that he, the Government and the Conservative party will bitterly rue the day when they seemed to be washing their hands of the future of a firm so outstanding for its technical achievement, its care for its work force and for its contribution to regional policy?

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. He must understand that had a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission taken place it would not necessarily have prevented the takeover of Pilkington by BTR. If the commission makes a recommendation that such a takeover is not against the public interest, I have no power whatever to stop it.

Mr. George Park: Does the decision not to refer the BTR bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission indicate a preference for expansion by acquisition rather than growth through good research and development, good industrial relations and good marketing?

Mr. Channon: It shows no preference whatever. All these factors are relevant to the Pilkington shareholders in weighing up what they should now do.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Even if the bid does not come within the narrow confines of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a great pity if a great manufacturing company like Pilkington which has played such a major part in the industrial life of St. Helens and the whole of the north-west should cease to remain an independent company?

Mr. Channon: It would not be right for me to express a view about its merits. It would also be quite wrong for me to express a preference for one of the two courses that are offered. My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned an important series of issues which the Pilkington shareholders will have to consider. I am sure that they will weigh carefully what he says.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: All hon. Members from the north-west are well acquainted with Pilkington and know about the work that has been done by its workers and management. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier answer? Will he put the interests of the community and the people of the northwest before the rather strange concept that competition must decide everything? Is it not clear that some shareholders may think that it is better to get a financial killing than to take account of the interests of local people?

Mr. Channon: I had to decide whether to refer this matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I cannot reconsider the decision that I have announced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Pilkington's shareholders must weigh up all these arguments and the strong feeling in all parts of the House and outside. I have not announced today that BTR has taken over Pilkington, or that it is likely to do so. All that I have decided to do is not to refer the matter to the commission.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is this not a further example of the merger mania that seems to be rife? I believe that my right hon. Friend has shown wisdom in deciding to have an immediate review of competition policy. It should also consider the preservation of research and development and the future security of many small and medium-sized firms, which are suppliers to the big ones.

Mr. Channon: I agree that it is right to review competition policy in relation to mergers and restrictive trade practices. My hon. Friend's points and the evidence he gives to that review will be of value in helping me to decide on the issues involved.

Mr. James Callaghan: I venture a guess that there is a majority opinion in this country, and probably in the House, against the takeover. If the Minister feels that he is under a disability in expressing an opinion about it because of his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, why cannot the Prime Minister call in the chairman of BTR, tell him what the view is and invite him to withdraw his offer?

Mr. Channon: The House has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Surely he will accept that it would be quite wrong for any Secretary of State for Trade and

Industry to express a view from this Dispatch Box as to the merits of one side or another when a bid has been made.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, notwithstanding his decision, it will be greeted with dismay by many thousands of Pilkington workers, including those in my constituency? Does he also accept that the views that have been expressed on both sides of the House make it perfectly plain that it is very much in the national interest that companies with a strong regional base should be allowed to flourish and that companies that put maximum effort into research and development and their long-term future should also be allowed to flourish? Will he take an early opportunity to make it perfectly plain to the Pilkington shareholders and others that the Government have considerations of that kind very much in mind?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that companies with a strong regional base should flourish and that it is also important that companies with a strong research and development base should flourish.

Mr. Jim Craigen: What does the Secretary for State have to say to the 2,500 employees of Barr and Stroud in the Glasgow area whose jobs are geared to research and development and defence contracts? Does he believe that BTR's management philosophy recognises the long-term potential of high-tech as against the short-term advantage of profit?

Mr. Channon: Those involved have to decide. It is not for me to make a judgment between those two management philosophies, if they have been accurately so described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Secretary of State agree that there comes a point when the state or the Government have a responsibility? There comes a point when the balance between commercial interests and those of the state has to be taken alto account. Does not the Secretary of State agree that we have here a takeover bid which makes little or no industrial sense? I agree that it is not a competition point, but it is certainly a point in the public interest. Does he not feel that he has some duty to interfere in this apparently competitive situation so as to ensure that an independent company which has both local and regional interests should be given some protection from the predators that now exist in our industrial society?

Mr. Channon: It is very difficult to reach a decision in a case of this kind. I had to weigh all the factors involved before coming to the decision that I took. It was wholly consistent with decisions taken over many years—that references should be made primarily on competition grounds. It is only reasonable and right that there should be some element of predictability and consistency in these decisions, and I am satisfied that what I have done today is in accordance with that, and is right.

Mr. Speaker: I made a mistake in calling in succession two Members from the Opposition Benches, so I will call two on the Government Benches.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend beware of the call from Socialists for control over every takeover bid because that is the first step to bureaucratic


control over the City and over the country's savings? Having done so, will my right hon. Friend point out to investment managers that they have a responsibility beyond what is described by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as "short-termism" and have to look to industry, the community and the country when considering whether to back a bid? Will he also point out to the newspapers that by not referring a bid such as Simons only last week to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission he is not giving the green light to those seeking to take over the company?

Mr. Channon: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says, and I am grateful to him for pointing out these facts. It is now up to the shareholders of Pilkington to weigh up all the arguments put in front of them and to come to a decision as to their best course for the future.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a very dangerous route for any Secretary of State to use the mechanism of referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for seeking to frustrate a takeover bid for reasons other than the national interest, as clearly defined in the Fair Trading Act 1973? Should there not continue to be a clear presumption that shareholders know best how to dispose of their assets?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robin Cook: Surely the dominant share of the glass market that Pilkington at present enjoys is itself a ground for referring on grounds of competition policy any bid to take over the ownership of that company. Does the Secretary of State accept that large parts of British industry these days will regard as outstandingly naive his view that shareholders take any other than the short-term view of what affects their share price?
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Pilkington provides many jobs in regions where the Government have created large numbers of unemployed and that it has a proven track record in developing high technology? It is his job to protect British jobs and British technology. Why, then, is he standing aside to let a predator pounce—a predator with a proven track record of selling off British technology to foreign companies?
May I press the Secretary of State on the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) that the market plainly knew about his

decision yesterday? Is it not clear that, despite the brave talk of his colleague about stamping out insider dealing, his Government have not yet succeeded in stopping the leaks from his own Department?

Mr. Channon: As to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I have no evidence of that whatsoever. If he has evidence of it, of course I will look at it and refer it to the inspectors.
As to the earlier part of the question, of course I recognise—the whole House does—that Pilkington's record on high technology is extremely good. I also recognise that the company employs a large number of people in the north-west. It is for the shareholders to decide what is in the best long-term interests of the prosperity of Pilkington. I am sure that they will bear very much in mind the excchanges in the House.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?

Mr. Atkinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice. You will recall that, in answering questions about Guinness, the Minister of State, in answer to a point put to him by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher), who asked him to look after the interests of the shareholders of Guinness, nodded approval. Similarly, the Secretary of State, throughout his answers on Pilkington, has replied in a similar way by agreeing that he and, indirectly, the House have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of shareholders' interests——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for movements of the head or for questions or answers given from the Back Benches or the Front Benches.

Mr. Atkinson: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking your advice as to what responsibility the House has when it comes to guaranteeing anything to shareholders. It is under no obligation to them whatsoever, and the Minister of State ought to reconsider the nod that he gave.

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that there will be debates on this matter and that these are legitimate points to raise, but they are not matters of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my question I suggested that the Leader of the Opposition had supported Guinness. I should have referred to the leader of the Liberal party.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JANUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 20 JANUARY—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Divided Nation—Failure of the Government's Economic Policies".
Debate on a motion on EC documents relating to broadcasting. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 21 JANUARY—Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 22 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 26 JANUARY—Opposition Day (6th Allotted Day). There will be debate on an Opposition motion, the subject for debate to be announced.
[Tuesday 20 January
Relevant European Documents

(a) 8227/84 A Common Market for Broadcasting
(b) 6739/86 Proposed harmonisation of Member States' Legislation affecting broadcasting

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 5-iv (1984–85), para 3
(b) HC 21-xxiv (1985–86), para 2]

Mr. Kinnock: Following the most recent exchanges in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that national trading and industrial interests are not best served by conglomerates gobbling up productive and technologically progressive British companies, and that the matter is a fitting one for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? It is, in any event, a suitable subject for debate, and I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give an undertaking now that the Government will shortly provide time for consideration of this and related issues?
As the right hon. Gentleman has just announced, the House will give two days next week to the remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill, which is obviously very complex, which will provide further dictatorial powers for the Government, breaks promises about rights and safeguards given by previous Ministers and which seeks to set the Secretary of State above the normal process of the law. All that surely justifies proper provision for discussion in Committee, not the indecent and inefficient haste with which the Government are trying to shove the Bill through the House. Will the Leader of the House at least give an undertaking now that further days in future weeks will be given to this Bill so that some semblance of proper consideration can be given to the complex matters within it?
We note that next week time will be made available for a debate on the Royal Air Force. Will the Leader of the House give an indication of when we may expect a debate on the Royal Navy, especially in view of the considerable concern about the implications for defence of the

continuing reduction of the British merchant fleet which has occasioned much comment in the House and elsewhere?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that yesterday the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled rightly advised that in these savage and unprecedented winter conditions people should keep their heating on and keep warm? Is the Leader of the House aware that if they are to take that advice in practice, the poorest people must have their fear of big bills removed? Will he make provision for a Government statement next week to give assurances that they will obtain from the gas and electricity boards a guarantee that poor people, such as pensioners, who keep their heating on in these severe conditions, and who have difficulty in paying their bills for the current quarter, will not be disconnected as a consequence of their difficulty in meeting the cost for weeks like this?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The information is already available.

Mr. Kinnock: No, it is not, you ignoramus. I was not referring to you, Mr. Speaker, but to the ignoramus on the Government side.
On a related matter, while we welcome the Government's recently announced support for charities which are helping the homeless, will the Leader of the House now provide time for an urgent debate on the general plight of the homeless, both in the current arctic conditions and in less inclement weather, and on the provision that is necessary to help them?
Finally, on this week's business, since we have the opportunity, there are strong indications that the payroll vote will be called out tomorrow to try to defeat the Bill being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which is intended to provide help for pensioners who are having difficulty in meeting their licence fee. Can the right hon. Gentleman, whom we recognise to be truly a right honourable man, give an undertaking that he will make all efforts to discourage the mobilisation of the Government's official forces against a private Member's Bill?

Mr. David Winnick: Last point first, please.

Mr. Biffen: Of the six points that were put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I shall happily take the last one first. Of course, I note what he says about tomorrow's voting arrangements. He alerts me of arrangements which I have no doubt may have existed in a complex fashion over many years. I dare say those who study the Crossman diaries can get the most authentic exhibition of their working. What has been said will have been heard, and tomorrow we shall see.
As to the fifth point, the matter concerning the homeless, that can be considered through the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman also sought a statement on the policy of gas and electricity authorities in respect of disconnection for those who will have incurred extra high payments during recent days. I shall refer his anxiety that there should be a statement on the point.
Of course, I understand his concern that we should have a debate reasonably soon upon the Royal Navy. Perhaps more than any other of the service debates it


would enable one to consider the nuclear question of British forces. I think I can assure him that a day will be available fairly soon.
Perhaps experience of next week will show us that the Local Government Finance Bill is a wise and constructive piece of action on the part of my right hon. Friend, which will rescue local authorities from what would otherwise have been an embarrassing situation. I hope that my generosity will prove more valid than the right hon. Gentleman's gloom-laden analysis of the future of that legislation. May I say once again that, through the usual channels, we can reconcile any anxieties on that point.
On the matter that he raised initially about monopolies and mergers within British industry and commerce, that will clearly be covered by the debate next Tuesday but I understand that he is anxious about it in a wider context. Again, perhaps that is something that we could consider through the usual channels.

Sir Edward du Cann: Since we are in the season of debates about the armed services of the Crown, will my right hon. Friend consider allocating a day for a discussion about what is often called the fourth arm of our national defence, the Merchant Navy? There is great anxiety in all quarters of the House, from the point of view both of defence and of the economy, about the proportion of it that is owned and registered in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend, with great authority, makes a point on the Merchant Navy. He will have heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that the debate on the Royal Navy was important precisely because it could embrace those considerations. I shall certainly take that into account.

Mr. David Steel: When does the Leader of the House intend to announce the date of the Budget?
Secondly, will he note that the answers that the Prime Minister gave to me on Tuesday and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) today about empty houses in London being an answer to the problem of the homeless require further investigation by Ministers to establish the legislative and administrative barriers against their being occupied? What is needed from the Government, in addition to the welcome funds, is the release of heated public buildings to deal with the immediate crisis.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Hear, hear.

Mr. Steel: Perhaps we could start with county hall across the way.

Mr. Biffen: I note the alliance that has already been picked up by the right hon. Gentleman on this point. I am sure that he is now seeking to ditch the alliance, but we all understand his difficulties. Of course, I shall see that the points made by the right hon. Gentleman are related to the relevant Members of the Treasury Bench.
As to the first point, I am not in a position to make an announcement this afternoon but I appreciate that there is concern that the date is known as soon as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Ignoramus or not, it is my understanding that gas and electricity boards have already given an assurance that they will not disconnect the supplies to pensioners between November and March.
Irrespective of the response from the Leader of the Opposition, may I support him in making a call to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate at an early date on the takeover mania that has seized the country? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the decision now lay with the shareholders. Bearing in mind that institutions in the City, sadly, are major shareholders, and that their perspective is the short term rather than the long term, the sooner we discuss the best interests of the country and of manufacturing industry, the better.

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I take account of my hon. Friend's anxiety that there should be a debate upon monopolies and mergers. For myself, I would be happy to be called a Tory ignoramus. I would be fearful if I were called a Tory intellectual.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: In regard to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and by the Tory ignoramus, for an early debate on mergers, does the Leader of the House agree that there is even more urgency following the pusillanimous and lamentable display of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to Pilkingtons, which is a world leader in its industry? Does he not agree that there is urgency, as we cannot afford to lose firms that are world leaders, because we have not got many of them?

Mr. Biffen: I strongly repudiate the hon. Gentleman's description of my right hon. Friend. I believe that my right hon. Friend set out to the House the framework which governed his decision in a way that was courageous and helpful in the consideration of the argument. As to the wider request for a debate upon monopolies and mergers, I take note of it.

Sir Ian Lloyd: May I first reassure my right hon. Friend that in respect of the House his intellect competes only with his wit? He will know that within the last three or four years the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place produced a most important report, as a result of which there is now an annual report to Parliament on civil research and development. He will also be aware that within the past two days that same Committee has published a most disturbing report on civil research and development in the United Kingdom in which it called for enlarged understanding and attached importance to the whole question of science and technology at all levels of Government. As one of those levels is undoubtedly this House, may we have an early opportunity to discuss an office of technology assessment? Could not that best be debated in the context of a general debate on the annual report to Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly consider that point.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion No. 162.
[That this House congratulates The International Liaison Committee for the Peaceful and Independent Reunification of Korea in organising the International Conference in Pyongyang for the declaration of the Korean peninsula as a nuclear free peace zone; notes that the basing of 40,000 United States troops and the deployment of nuclear missiles on Korean soil is a major obstacle for peace talks in the area; calls for the withdrawal of all American troops and nuclear missiles; and calls upon Her Majesty's


Government to support the campaign for the de-nuclearisation and peaceful re-unification of the Korean peninsular.]
and early-day motion No. 163:
[That this House deplores the further repression of human rights in South Korea by the arrest of 1,400 students at Konguk University, the invasion of the University Campus by 7,000 members of the military and police forces and the wounding of 70 people, many of them mysteriously; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to protest at this violation of freedom to the South Korean Government and to seek the release of Mr. Kim Dae Jung, the leader of the democratic opposition.]
As the Government support both these motions in principle and Her Majesty's warships have recently visited South Korea, is that not an example of double standards? Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on that issue?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman might be prepared to try his hand at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next week.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend will have heard me refer before to early-day motion No. 310, which refers to small dairy farms.
[That this House believes that should a reduction in milk quotas be necessary, the first 200,000 litres of a United Kingdom holding should not be included in any calculations, thus helping to ensure the future of the small family farms which have done so much for the British countryside.]
Can he give some idea when the final decision will be made on the dairy inspection charges? When will we get an opportunity to debate them in the House?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot provide the information that my hon. Friend understandably seeks. However, I shall contact my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see whether he can be more forthcoming.

Mrs. Renée Short: In view of the massive concern about the Government's policy on the care of mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients in the community and in view of the fact that the Select Committee on Social Services report was presented a year ago, will he provide time for a debate on the report at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly consider that matter and how that can be considered in the context of the Government's response to the report and decide whether there is time available for such a debate.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend give priority to the introduction of the resolution on short speeches from Back Benchers because that would be a great benefit? Will he do that at an early opportunity so that it can be quickly promulgated, with or without the amendment?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will have noted that the motion to provide for that now stands on the Order Paper. It has been amended and I hope that a debate can take place quite soon.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House read the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests which deals with the declaraition—or, rather, lack of a declaration—of

interests by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)? Can we not have a debate on the matter so that the House can take a decision and secure the fullest possible enforcement of the register?

Mr. Biffen: I have only just received a copy of the report. I shall study it and consider how it will stand with the other matters that compete for the attention of the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: We all know how concerned my right hon. Friend is for the welfare of all right hon. and hon. Members of the House. The House is becoming increasingly concerned about the Leader of the Opposition, not only indulging in a punch-up outside a Pakistani chippy in Ealing, but seeking yesterday to mug my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security arid the Disabled. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is subject to much greater pressures and provocations. Perhaps he has some advice or assistance for the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a debate on this matter?

Mr. Marlow: Perhaps we could have a debate on this matter and my right hon. Friend could then give his views in much greater detail than he can now.

Mr. Biffen: I have a kind of institutional affection for the Leader of the Opposition and he and I are both great admirers of Aneurin Bevan. I remember Aneurin Bevan once describing Hugh Gaitskell as a "desiccated calculating machine." I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to persuade us that he is not in that tradition.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week on the outcome of the discussions in the United States of America between British and Argentine officials on the future of the Falklands?

Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly convey the request for such a statement to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Michael Fallon: In view of the postponement of this week's Opposition debate on the so-called north-south divide, will my right hon. Friend consider whether there should be some minimum period of notice beyond which the subject for an Opposition day ought not to be changed?

Mr. Biffen: Clearly, that is a factor for consideration. However, I thought that we did rather well out of that one.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday, during Social Service questions. the Minister's announcement on cold weather payments resulted in a kind of change of legislation? In view of the fact that it may not be as clear each week whether the minus 1·5 deg C point will be reached for the whole week, will it not be necessary—in light of the precedent that has been set by the Minister of State—for a weekly statement to be made by the Government, preferably on a Monday, to tell the House exactly what will happen in respect of weather payments? If not, it means that what happened last week was a farce. It means that legislation has been disrupted for only one occasion when it was uncomfortable for the Prime Minister and the Government.
Can we have an assurance from the Leader of House that a Minister will make a statement on weather payments, one way or the other, every week so that the House can be clear, and that the precedent will be proceeded with?

Mr. Biffen: No.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that the answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is bound to confirm the strong impression that Ministers have been told to be present tomorrow to destroy my Bill? Is he further aware that such a manoeuvre is deeply offensive to many pensioners on low incomes who believe that the rights and wrongs of my Bill should be debated? They see no reason why Cabinet Ministers on very large salaries should be told to come here and destroy the measure.

Mr. Biffen: The very nature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks persuades me that there is nothing that I can say that would change his mind.

Mr. John Heddle: In the light of the publication yesterday by the Law Commission about the possibilities of eradicating gazumping, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an obnoxious practice and that a debate, if not next week, then at the soonest possible opportunity, on the Law Commissioners' report would be greatly welcomed by many first-time buyers?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this topic and that feeling is widely shared in the House. I cannot guarantee that there will be Government time available in the near future for such a debate. Perhaps he might consider trying to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view of the Government's delayed identification or recognition of the north-south divide, and in spite of whatever economic debates take place in the House next week, will the Leader of the House make room for a debate on that question, which has been highlighted again today by the decision taken in the House with regard to Pilkington?

Mr. Biffen: The Leader of the Opposition has underlined the significance of a debate upon merger and monopoly policy more generally and that has been echoed in all parts of the House, including the Conservative Benches. I will add the voice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), to those voices.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As we have all suffered yet another petrol price rise, does my right hon. Friend think that the time is now right to have an urgent debate on what is obviously price collusion and a price cartel operated by the petrol companies? Does he accept that there is a need for the matter to be referred to the Office of Fair Trading? We cannot shop around if the prices that all the petrol companies are charging are the same.

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. John Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion No. 434?
[That this House urges the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to refer the BTR bid for Pilkingtons to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
That early-day motion has ben signed by 76 hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House. As hon. Members have expressed strong views about the bid, will the Leader of the House make time available in the next fortnight for a debate about the principles involved in the bid so that all hon. Members can make their feelings plain to the shareholders of Pilkington and say what they think that they should do about the BTR bid?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and his point is very much on the lines of the question originally put by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I will take account of the depth of feeling that exists on this matter.

Mr. Eric Forth: In view of the number of references to self-regulation, can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on that subject and, in doing so, will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to lead off the debate, giving examples from his personal capacity for self-regulation, including on the pavement outside Indian restaurants and his recent behaviour in the House?

Mr. Biffen: Some topics have such a durability that I shall be dealing with them as we approach the months of Heaven knows what towards the end of the year. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Greville Janner: Ignoring all the ignorami, can the Leader of the House, at a time when we are considering the plight of the elderly, consider the plight of those men who are not quite so old but who are suffering unnecessarily because they are not permitted voluntarily to retire at the age of 60? Are we to have a debate on this extraordinary anomaly of our system which forces men to remain in jobs when they are desperate to retire, while so many of our constituents are desperate for the jobs that they are occupying?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a matter that has great economic and social implications. I cannot guarantee Government time to debate it soon, but the House would enjoy listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the refusal of the Department of Trade and Industry to refer the takeover of the Ault and Wiborg paint factory in my constituency by Berger, where 220 jobs are involved? Will he accept that it is important to have a debate on competition policy? Failing that, could we have an early statement about the Government's position on competition policy as a result of their current review?

Mr. Biffen: I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, particularly in the light of his zealous concern for his constituency interest. I shall see what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry knows of that anxiety.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Leader of the House recall that, shortly before Christmas, in a series of business questions, I asked for a debate on the prison system, and he showed some sympathy with my point of view? Since then, we have had yet another riot in a Scottish prison. Have not imprisonment and the terms


and conditions in prison, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, become a matter of public concern? Should not the House debate the subject soon?

Mr. Biffen: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, which I manifested before Christmas. My sympathy grows, but the prospect of a debate in Government time tends to diminish as we go through this time of the year. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Given that the official Opposition are being granted their second Supply day debate in seven days, and that we are debating the RAF next week, and bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's well-known charitable disposition, would it not be fair to grant the alliance a Supply day so that we can debate its defence policies and give it an opportunity to climb out of the trough demonstrated in an ITN poll, which shows them winning not a single Conservative seat seven years into a Conservative Government?

Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's interest that the alliance parties should have more formal political time than at present, and as he is in a position to monitor how effective that is in reducing their impact, I shall be guided by him.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend is aware, as all of us are, that this week bureaucracy has been beaten by ministerial action. Can he bring forward a debate so that we can see how the workings of the DHSS in the applications for mobility and attendance allowances could be eased in the same way, so that those who are ill and sick, whose letters fill our postbags regularly, do not have to wait the average length of time, between nine months and one year, between application, medical examination, adjudication and result?

Mr. Biffen: I suspect that my postbag is not dissimilar from that of my hon. Friend, so I can understand what motivates his point. I shall refer this matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour councils are using town halls as political headquarters from which they are already waging the next general election campaign, using ratepayers' money? Can we have another local government Bill quickly to outlaw this practice once and for all?

Mr. Biffen: If all that is implied by my hon. and learned Friend is true, there is not much value for money in the context of current political fortunes, but I shall consider carefully what he says and refer it to the relevant Minister.

Mr. James Couchman: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read early-day motions Nos. 400 and 414?
[That this House notes that the United States Government intends to impose a punitive 200 per cent. tariff increase to kill Beefeater, Tanquaray and Bombay gin exports to the United States whilst also threatening many hundreds of United Kingdom jobs; notes that the origins of the dispute with the European Community are with grain and other agricultural products; and calls upon all Governments involved to solve this dispute within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and not destroy three famous British export brands which United States citizens wish to purchase.]
[That this House expresses its deep concern at the proposal from the United States administration to impose a 200 per cent. increase in duty on a number of products imported from the European Economic Community; fears in particular that this would have an adverse impact on exports from the United Kingdom of Tanqueray and Beefeater gin; believes that the consequences on price, export levels, and employment would be severe; and urges Her Majesty's Government to do everything in its power to ensure a reconsideration by the United States within the next three weeks.]
These draw attention to the threat posed to the British gin industry by the United States Government, which proposes to put a 200 per cent. increase in tariff on imported gin if the EEC does not make concessions to the United States grain industry. Will my right hon. Friend give time for an urgent debate on this matter, which poses such a serious threat to important British exporters?

Mr. Biffen: The Treasury Bench would immediately be at one with my hon. Friend in being anxious not merely about gin but about the wider issue of a trade war between north America and western Europe. I shall refer my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but again this could feature as an Adjournment debate.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 10, new Schedules and Schedule 3.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

New Clause 1

REMOVAL OF MONOPOLY

'(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 there shall be substituted for subparagraph (a) the words "working and getting coal in Great Britain"

(2) In subsection (2) of that section the words "to the exclusion of any other person" in subparagraph (a) shall be deleted.

(3) Subsection (1) of section 36 of that Act shall be deleted.

(4) Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section shall be deleted.'.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 seeks to remove the monopoly that the National Coal Board enjoys, and has enjoyed for 40 years since the original nationalisation Act of 1946. That Act charged the board with the duty of securing the efficient development of the industry, and 40 years on it should be obvious to everyone that the record is not good. Almost every year of the NCB's existence has seen pits close and miners made redundant. During all that time the NCB has lurched deeper and deeper into debt and become more and more dependent on the goodwill of the Government and the support of the taxpayer. A whole series of Bills such as this have been enacted to transfer more and more of our taxes to the NCB, in return for which the taxpayer has seen little.
The NCB is not simply financially bankrupt, but is politically and socially bankrupt as well, and the reasons for this deserve some examination. It should be obvious to any student of the coal industry that the board has been living, since 1946, and certainly up to the recent strike, almost in a world of its own, protected from the real world, indifferent to, and oblivious, even contemptous, of the real disciplines of the energy market place. Had it not been so, we would have seen, long before the tragic strike of 1984–85, much better management, much more modern industrial relations and, above all, greater security, certainty for those who work in the industry, the miners, who for 40 years have been denied the opportunity to work in a successful and profitable industry and the chance of any share in that success and in profits.
The monopoly has insulated the Coal Board from reality. It is the privilege of the board alone to work and extract coal in the United Kingdom, and nobody else shall be allowed to do so other than with its permission, and that is at the heart of the industry's failure. Such a monopoly and privilege is not only wrong in principle, but has been disastrous in practice. There are no such monopolies in other countries. Private mining exists, and

other countries do not have to bail out their mining industries or coal boards. During the past 20 or 30 years they have not had to divert resources to finance Hobart House which might otherwise have been spent on roads, schools and hospitals. Indeed, the mining industries of those countries have made a contribution to roads, schools and hospitals, as have our other extractive industries, instead of diverting resources away from them.
It is high time that the privilege and monopoly of the board was reviewed by the House and, after such a review, removed. I only regret that the Bill promulgates, yet again, the conspiracy between the Department of Energy and Hobart House further to defraud taxpayers of resources which they would wish to see spent on what is most needed, such as roads and hospitals, rather than on keeping uneconomic pits open for social reasons.
I regret that the Bill does not establish the basis of a new Act to supersede the 1946 Act and lay down the lines on which a restructured industry might be made ready for the 1990s and opened up to fresh opportunities, new investment and, above all, wider ownership.
The objective of removing the monopoly is threefold. First, it would allow private investment in the industry. It is clear that the industry, as constituted after the strike, will require substantial capital investment for several years. Yesterday's White Paper showed that capital investment of £648 million will be required in the next financial year, and £698 million in the two subsequent years up to the end of 1990.
Even if the board becomes profitable, it is still, because of its monopoly position, denied access to the private capital markets and is not encouraged even to consider the possibility of joint ventures with private industry.
We are speaking, not of selling parts of the industry or profitable investments, such as Selby, but of seeking ways to finance the Selbys of the future and to encourage fresh private capital into the industry through joint ventures and partnerships and through the sort of Phoenix schemes that we have devised for the steel industry.
The second purpose of removing the monopoly is to encourage the existing private opencast sector. That is a small but important sector, employing 1,500 people. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) will, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make a powerful case for saying that the limits on this sector, which are at present imposed and controlled, not by the Department of Energy or the county councils on planning grounds, but by itself, should be removed, and that further opencast development should take place, providing cheaper coal and a continuing competitive stimulus to the Coal Board.
The third aim of removing the monopoly is to encourage the private small mines sector. It is not generally known that small private mines are allowed to flourish in the Coal Board's back yard, provided that they employ not more than 30 men, rather as private agriculture is tolerated in the Soviet Union. There are 160 small mines in Britain and, interestingly, they are in areas of high unemployment. There are 90 small mines in Wales, 29 in the north-east and 20 in Scotland. They produce a formidable output of 800,000 tonnes of coal a year and employ about 2,000 people, but the cardinal point that also applies to the private opencast sector is that it would like to employ more men. It is willing and ready to employ more.
It is extraordinary that in areas of high unemployment, under a Government who favour the development of small


businesses, there is a Coal Board structure which denies other mines and operations the opportunity to employ more men, even when they are already successful.
It is the view of the small mine owners, given in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy, that employment would expand significantly and considerably if this monopoly restraint were lifted. Anyone who is in any doubt about that should read memorandum 33 to the Select Committee on Energy, which is a damning indictment of the evils of monopoly and an eloquent testimony to the possibilities and opportunities that exist if this great industry is opened up to greater and further competition.
4.45 pm
The question is not whether the Opposition will defend this monopoly—obviously they will defend it, just as they defended the monopoly of the National Union of Mineworkers—but whether the Government have the courage and the vision to tackle the monopoly of the Coal Board in the same way as the Bill tackles the monopoly of the NUM.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I do not support the provisions of new clause 1, but this is a welcome debate for the House and I am pleased that the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) have tabled the new clause.
The issue needs to be opened up and examined. No one in this House or in the country would want to protect a monopoly unless there was an absolutely overwhelming case for doing so. I am not sure that the case for a monopoly in the coal industry is any longer justified, but a debate on that should take place and we should examine the matter carefully. No doubt when the Act was put on the statute book against the background of private exploitation that had taken place in the preceding decades, the case for a monopoly was overwhelming. In the atmosphere and circumstances of that day we can understand and support what brought the industry into the modern, post-war era.
The National Coal Board has undoubtedly made a major contribution to Britain's industry and to the communities in which it has operated. However, if we look at the wording of the 1946 Act, which the hon. Member for Darlington and his colleagues seek to amend, we see that it is a product of the 1940s and of the atmosphere and circumstances that existed at that time. The Act states
working and getting the coal in Great Britain
will be carried out
to the exclusion…of any other person…searching and boring for coal in Great Britain
shall be carried out
to the exclusion of any other person.
There could not be a more abrupt and crude description of a monopoly than those words.
The Act then mentions the provision of licences. I wish to dwell on that for a moment, because it appears that putting the power to give licences in the hands of the National Coal Board is quite inappropriate. Oil licences are issued and the royalties are paid to the Government. The appropriate body to issue licences should be the Government, not an operator. That does not mean that the Government should give licences to anyone and everyone. It seems wrong that an operating business should have the royalties and the right to give licences in this way, even if it is a monopoly. The Government may

decide to give what will be British Coal a monopoly to operate in this sphere, but it is no longer appropriate that that body should have the power to give licences and take royalties, even if it was appropriate in 1946. Therefore, I see a case for changing the provision to give the Government the right to do that.
Opposition Members who have had the association with the co-operative movement that I have had will believe that there are forms of ownership other than state ownership which could and, indeed do, make a success of running industrial enterprises in many spheres. Some hon. Members may even want to see co-ownership for organisations carrying out mining activities. During the dispute it was often suggested that some loss-making pits should be given to those who work in them. I was not in favour of that. If we give pits to anybody, let us give profitable pits to those who work in them, so that they can make a success of them. At present the Government do not have the power to do that because they do not issue the licences.
I can see a case for considering that argument seriously and for transferring the power to give licences and to fix and take royalties to the Government. That would be more consistent with the provision for issuing licences for extracting minerals in other spheres and, certainly, for extracting oil. The country has benefited from that system in other spheres and I see no reason why that provision should not be transferred.
I hope that the debate will continue. There is no inherent reason why the coal industry should be a monopoly industry. Because of its set-up, it could be argued that every pit should operate as a separate commercial entity. I would not go anything like as far as that, but certainly there could be three state enterprises. If Labour Members do not want the coal industry to go into private ownership, we could have different public sector corporations, and in that way we could have competition and compare the operation and efficiency of different parts of the mining industry.
We have seen mining succeed in much more difficult spheres, such as in tin. That has been carried out successfully and efficiently and it may be helpful to have that sort of competiton in coal mining.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman spoke of different types of public competition. Is he aware that every colliery in the British coalfield works on the basis of price per tonne at that particular colliery and is in competition with other collieries, and has been since vesting day in 1947?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: That is a different consideration because it does not take into account the full free-standing commercial set-up of the sort that I am suggesting. Now is not the time to discuss that.
The coal industry has been in considerable turmoil in recent times. From both the national and industrial point of view now is not the time to embark upon a major change such as is being proposed. That does not mean that the 1946 statute should be set in concrete for ever and a day. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to widen the debate and hope that it will proceed further and that we shall have many more discussions on this issue.

Mr. Peter Rost: I support the amendment and the way in which it was proposed, and hope that my


hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) will press it to a vote. My only regret is that the debate is necessary.
It is extraordinary that, after six years of a Government who believe in and have put into practice policies of competition, private enterprise, incentives and lower energy costs, they should have evaded amending the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, which provides such a stranglehold over what limited private sector mining has been allowed to persist. The Government should and could have removed the worst abuses of the Coal Board's monopoly long ago.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, there are about 160 small pits, producing about 1 per cent. of the deep-mined coal and employing about 2,000 people. Many are miners' co-operatives. They produced a great deal more in 1960, but since then the restrictions of the statutes have held them back. The Energy Select Committee's memorandum, for which evidence was taken from the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain, is a most damning indictment of and explanation why the private sector has been so clobbered. For years the FSMGB has argued for the removal of the worst restriction in that Act—that a deep mine in the private sector should be allowed to employ only 30 men.
I visited one of those small pits in Staffordshire for a day to find out exactly what the problems were. It came to light that, because it was allowed to employ only 30 miners, it could operate only two shifts. It wants to work three shifts to optimise its potential and, indeed, employ more miners. There are plenty of miners looking for jobs since the board has been closing pits, but they cannot be employed in such pits. It is not practicable for the mine to split its 30 work force over three shifts as it would not be viable to operate a shift with only 10 men; at least 15 are needed. The result is that the pit is restricted from increasing its output, providing additional jobs and getting on with it.
Plenty of other small mines and sites could and would employ 40 or even 100 men. Those jobs could be created, many of them in workers-miners' co-operatives, but the Act prevents that.

Mr. Alec Woodall: How many miners made redundant by the Coal Board are working at the small mine that the hon. Gentleman visited?

Mr. Rost: I understand that British coal miners are only too willing to be employed in the mining industry, if they have the opportunity.
The Government are achieving a massive transformation of the British economy, creating new jobs and encouraging small enterprises, but in this case we are reluctant to set free an industry which could make a bigger contribution to the national economy than it is at present. Those small mines, many of which are co-operatives, wish to reduce their operating costs by operating more sensibly, but they are prevented from doing so by this stupid 1946 monopolies legislation that states that they should be allowed to employ only 30 men.
There is evidence that whole areas of potential coal mining are being artificially sterilised by that restrictive legislation.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rost: I hope that Opposition Members will allow me to make my brief speech so that they may then have the opportunity to make theirs.
There are whole areas with mining potential that the Coal Board does not want because they are too small. They could be developed as small and medium-sized mines if private enterprises were allowed to employ more than 30 men, but they are not. That is restricting the coal industry's economy and job opportunities. How can Government—this Government of all Governments—justify the fact that they have ignored this abuse that should have been dealt with long ago?
5 pm
There is evidence on record of pits which the Coal Board has closed but which the private sector would have liked to have taken over, or existing miners or management would have liked to have taken on. Such pits would have been made viable and economic if the private sector had been given that opportunity, but because it would have involved the employment of more than 30 miners they were not allowed that opportunity.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Where is the evidence of those pits being offered to the miners who would have taken them over and made them profitable? The only time when miners wanted to do that they were refused. I am aware of the small mine that the hon. Gentleman has visited, but can he tell us how many present small mining operations do not employ 30 men even though they are allowed to do so?

Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman has proved my case. They do not employ that number because they are not given the opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of course they are."] If the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) wants evidence from me he may study some of my voluminous files afterwards if he wished to do so.
There are other restrictions that ought to have been removed long ago and not just restrictions on the numbers employed. I refer to the issue of licences, which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to so eloquently. The issuing of licences to the private sector is under the patronage of its major monopoly competitor, the Coal Board. The board exercises that patronage in an arbitrary and rather restrictive fashion. It is the judge and jury. What is even worse is that there is no independent right of appeal when there is an abuse or alleged abuse. The private sector wants a licence but can be stopped by the Coal Board. That is unjustifiable and should have been amended long ago.
A third restrictive factor should have been removed long ago. It is bad enough that the private sector is inhibited and restricted by the original statutes, but on top of that it must pay royalties per tonne, not to the Government or the Department of Energy but to the Coal Board—its major competitor.
In the deep mine sector that royalty works out as the equivalent of £1 per tonne. That is really quite extraordinary. The Government and not British Coal should be the custodian of coal reserves and all mines should pay a royalty to the Government in the same way as the oil and gas exploration agencies pay a royalty. There should be no restrictions on output or manpower.
I believe that if we study the past 40 years it will be clearly seen that there has been an abuse of monopoly and that that has been condoned by Government. I am ashamed to say that Government have failed. They should have put this right long ago.
In its 1983 report the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that private operations provided a valuable element of competition and should be encouraged as a means of increasing the efficiency of the NCB. We have moved a little since then but certainly not in the right direction.
The royalties that the private sector has to pay to the Coal Board out of its profitable operations provide part of the subsidy for the board's loss-making operations. That is quite unacceptable.
The other area of the private sector coal industry that has been graciously allowed to continue in a modest little way is opencast mining. Private opencast sites provide about 10 per cent. of our opencast coal—about 1·4 million tonnes—and employ about 1,500 people. That is only a fraction of the opencast coal produced. The rest is mined by the Coal Board. Over the years we have had voluminous evidence to suggest that the private sector has the potential to produce more and employ more people if it were allowed to mine the smaller opencast reserves that the Coal Board and the Opencast Executive do not want to know about. Once again, there is a restriction because the licensing power is under the patronage of the Coal Board. The main complaint that the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators has put to Government over many years is that the monopoly producer, the Coal Board, is also the regulator for the other producers.
The 1983 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that the limit of production for opencast mines in the private sector—standing at 25,000 tonnes a year—should be raised to at least 100,000 tonnes. We now have some flexibility but it is still up to the Coal Board to decide whether to allow a licence to exceed the 25,000 tonnes. That is a ludicrously small amount. In practice it means that potential opencast mines that the Coal Board does not wish to operate because they are too small but which nevertheless could be developed by the private sector are not tapped because the limit on private sect or production has not been increased to at least 100,000 tonnes a year.
What is even worse is that private sector opencast mines have to pay a royalty, not to the Government or to the Department of Energy but to the Coal Board. That royalty is about £16 per tonne. The royalty that the private opencast mine industry has to pay to the Coal Board is higher than the Coal Board's profits per tonne from its own opencast operations. That says something about the relative efficiency of the two sectors.
How can such monopolistic restrictions be justified by the Government? The royalty penalty that the private sector must pay to the Coal Board also limits the number of potential sites that can be exploited. There are many potential sites in the private sector that could be profitable but are not developed because the £16 royalty must be taken into account.
I ask the Minister to consider how much coal the Coal Board could profitably produce if it did not receive these payments from the private sector or instead had to pay a £16 per tonne royalty on its production. I shall be interested to hear his answer.
Private opencast operators are afraid to complain—this this is one of the worst abuses of the monopoly—because they fear that they will be victimised and refused further licences from the board if they do not accept the few crumbs that are given to them under the patronage scheme. The private sector has to take this lying down. There is evidence to support that. That position is quite unacceptable.
I cannot understand why nothing has been done to amend the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. That measure has represented a shameful restriction on competition and employment opportunities for miners. It is holding back the production of cheaper coal and preventing a further addition to the creation of wealth in Britain, which our economy desperately needs. I suggest that the time for action is long past.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Next year it will be 50 years since a Conservative Government nationalised the coal industry in Britain. I greatly appreciated the spirited defence of capitalism by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), but, despite what he said, it was a Conservative Government who nationalised this country's coal reserves in the Coal Act 1938, which set up the Coal Commission. Thus, it is 50 years since we began nationalisation, although it is only 40 years since the 1946 Act replaced the Coal Commission with the National Coal Board.
People are bound to admit that nationalisation has proved to be a failure, even on the basis of the arguments put forward for it at the time. For example, it has manifestly failed to guarantee employment in the industry, as only 15 per cent. of the manpower needed at the time of nationalisation remains. It has also manifestly failed to provide the cheap coal on which industry depends, and imports are kept out only by hole-in-the-corner and backdoor agreements that are forced on the Central Electricity Generating Board. Moreover, nationalisation has failed to protect our market share in the energy industry. By contrast, the consumption of coal as a proportion of the total amount of energy consumed has increased in other parts of the world during the last 10 years.
Nationalisation has also failed to produce a social return. Billions of pounds have been wasted. Before the strike the figure was £1 billion per annum, and in the 10 years from 1974 to 1984 the figure was £6·5 billion per year. In addition, the taxpayer provides £700 million each year for investment. The NCB has been a great ball and chain round the ankles of British industry because it has kept our power prices at least 10 per cent. higher than they would otherwise have been if the CEGB had been able to buy its coal on a free market.
Even more obviously, nationalisation has failed to bring about good labour relations. When nationalisation took place, the great hope was that the old battles between the owners and the workers would disappear, but that has not happened. In 1972 and in 1973–74 there were great strikes. Most damagingly of all, there was the Scargill strike of 1984–85. Thus, in the past 10 years in particular, the coal industry's record has been worse than that of the Arabs when it comes to interrupting energy supplies.
Conservative Members see, and want to see, a great future for our coal industry. I am astonished that Opposition Members do not want to give more support to our proposals, which attempt to secure that advance. The


new clause invites my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is the Government's great privatiser, to give the coal industry the benefits that this Government have given in other areas since 1979 through their privatisation programme.
As I always do in such debates, I shall declare an interest, in that I have a connection with the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators. However, what I have to say is no different from what I have said in virtually every coal debate since becoming a Member of Parliament and prior to acquiring that interest. Privatisation is successful in other areas, and there is no reason why that success should not be repeated in the coal industry. Unlike the NUM, which pursues solely political goals, Conservative Members seek to pursue social and economic goals that will benefit those who work in the industry as well as the whole nation—taxpayers and consumers alike—through the increased efficiency that privatisation will bring.
I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) said about the necessity for liberalisation in advance of privatisation. That could be done very simply. I shall not rehearse those arguments, however, as I put them on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I hope that on this occasion my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to some of the points that I made. The 1983 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made recommendations to liberalise the small private sector regime. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some convincing reasons today to show why the Government have not yet found legislative time to make the small changes necessary.
5.15 pm
It is vital that Britain should have an efficient coal industry that is capable of providing for our expanding energy needs in an acceptable way. A monopoly is a disadvantage, because in the present structure there is a means of manipulating the price to the consumer. Happily, we now see less of that because, under the direction of my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government have made immense advances in securing a stable and expanding future for the coal industry, but the pressure would always be on the Government—particularly if we should ever have the misfortune to have a Labour Government—to protect a nationalised industry against the forces of competition and efficiency.
The economy of scale arguments that are normally advanced for such nationalised arrangements cannot really, in all logic, be applied to this industry. It is unlikely that we need a single monolithic entity to secure economies of scale in coal. Moreover, there are more likely to be difficulties with an industry that is organised on its present basis. I say that because of the complexity of organisation, administration and so on, and all the competing claims that are made, for example, on managers' time in having to lobby Ministers and provide the detailed reports required by the Department of Energy.
The coal monopoly is not by any means a natural monopoly. Indeed, it is a political monopoly that has been imposed by statute. As the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, there is no reason why we could not have competition within the industry in a variety of different

forms, whether by co-operative or joint ventures, individual mines or groups of mines, or whether it be that the industry is broken up by area on a profit-making basis. A huge variety of opportunity is open to us.
Thus, we could end the conspiracy against consumers and taxpayers that has gone on for the past 40 years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assist the coal industry in achieving its statutory obligation to secure the efficient development of a coal mining industry in this country. Before 1979 that was not achieved, and it is only in the past two or three years that we have made significant strides towards that.
I believe that denationalisation and privatisation will bring immense benefits to the industry and to us all, as taxpayers and consumers. Moreover, I can see enormous opportunities for efficiency gains and expansion. Opposition Members often say that they want new coalfields to be developed, but they deny us the means of doing that. The Coal Industry Act 1980 imposed an injunction on the NCB to break even by 1983–84. There is now an injunction for the industry to break even by the end of this decade. I hope that the date will not be postponed yet again.
The necessity for Government to act is brought about only by the artificial statutory regime in which the industry has to operate. If it was in private hands, it would be profitable and would operate in the interests of the whole country. The cost of electricity to consumers would be greatly reduced, as Lord Marshall said during the strike, possibly by 10 or 15 per cent., if we had the freedom to purchase coal in the cheapest market.
There is no reason why Britain should not have the cheapest market. Efficiency is not the enemy of the miner, as can be seen from the increase in earnings of those still in the industry. The tragic number of job losses in recent years would not have occurred if the industry had become more efficient earlier on. There would be a bigger market for coal in Britain if it were not for the likes of Mr. Scargill, who has frightened industrialists off coal, because they feared that their supplies could be interrupted at crucial moments. They were frightened off because they did not want to build up stocks as an insurance against the possibility of a strike and incur the cost of keeping coal idle as a result. The cost fell on the whole nation, because mothballed oil-fired stations had to be kept in operation against the possibility of a strike. The huge cost of the oil burn during the coal strike would not have been necessary were it not for the backward-looking, dinosaur attitudes of Opposition Members and their supporters.
According to Opposition Members, the coal strike of 1984–85 started because of the failure of the Coal Board to observe the guidelines for pit closures. If there were the opportunity for private market investors to put their money into pits, there would be no need for colliery review procedures. The market would be the review procedure. If a pit was inherently profitable, people would put money into it and keep it in operation. That would involve a more hard-headed decision than the bureaucratic self-serving one that the industry takes at the moment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Gentleman has said it all.

Mr. Hamilton: That is certainly true. All of us have said it all. The right hon. Gentleman has said it all before as well. I shall continue to say it all until the right hon.


Gentleman agrees. I suggest that he addresses his remarks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The sooner the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, the sooner I shall keep quiet.
There are many benefits of privatisation. Technical progress would become more rapid and relevant to different scales of operation, as we have seen in the North sea, where advances in the development of big oilfields have accompanied the ability to exploit smaller, previously inaccessible deposits. We would thereby achieve a greater security of supply with competitive suppliers. Above all, we would depoliticise the economic decisions that we have been obliged to take. There would be pressure to reduce costs, keep down prices and raise efficiency.
The Government's role would then be the proper role of the Government, not that of a Department interfering in the day-to-day management of the industry. The Government's role would be to maintain competition and to internalise the external costs of mining which otherwise would fall upon the community, and that would be wholly admirable. I counsel my hon. Friend to take to heart the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who was the architect of the privatisation programme during the last two Parliaments. In a recent publication he is reported as saying:
It is already clear to me who mainly prospers through privatisation. The shareholders of the companies we have sold prosper. the employees prosper, and most of all the customers and the whole Nation prosper. That is why privatisation in the United Kingdom has been such a success and why the programme will continue until all state-owned commercial industries are returned to where they belong—to the private sector.
I emphasise the last few words,
all state-owned commercial industries.
I hope that this legislation clearly presages the return of the coal industry to the private sector, so that it and we can prosper together.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) for raising this issue, which is important to his party. His colleagues are known for their enthusiasm in this matter. They will not be surprised at my response.
I must, however, dissociate myself from the comments of my hon. Friend about an alleged conspiracy between my Department and Hobart House to defraud the electorate. Perhaps he went a little over the top.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South raised some important points concerning the power to fix royalties. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), who has always robustly argued his case, made some important points about the private sector in the coal industry, both the licensed opencast sector, to which much reference is made, and the private deep mine sector, to which perhaps insufficient reference is made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) clearly laid out the social and economic goals which he considers will benefit all those in the industry, as well as the taxpayer and the country. I am advised—I do not rest on this argument—that the new clause would not have the effect that some hon. Members seek because, under schedule 1 to the 1946 legislation, the residue of coal will remain with British Coal.
My substantive response is that there is scope for the private and public sectors effectively to work together. The opencast sector is a prime example of how best that can

be done. In 1983 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported private sector output of 700,000 tonnes a year. By 1985–86 output had risen to 1·4 million tonnes, which is about 10 per cent. of the UK's annual opencast output.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash rightly mentioned the subject of royalties, which is a matter for negotiation between private sector operators and what will be British Coal. He mentioned the figure of £16 a tonne. He will know that many companies do not pay that level of royalty.
My hon. Friend will be aware also, I hope, that in 1981 my predecessor, the Under-Secretary of State, as a result of meetings with the National Coal Board and the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators, laid down five clear guidelines. The so-called five principles of 1981, which were agreed between the National Coal Board and private operators, and endorsed by the Government, have allowed arrangements to work well. The fourth guideline states that the NCB agreed
to set royalties at levels which will permit efficiently-managed operators to develop their business profitably.
That is an important guideline for the private sector.
The other guidelines, under which the NCB agreed to license opencast sites with up to 35,000 tonnes of workable reserves to resume the practice of considering a second licence for adjacent sites, bringing the total tonnage of contiguous reserves under licence to around 50,000 tonnes, to exercise the greatest possible flexibility on the maximum size of licensed deep mines, to phase out the practice of requiring many opencast licensees to deliver their coal to the board by offering all new licences free from any delivery requirements, and to reduce royalties for new licences in any case in which accounting evidence was provided which demonstrated that profit expectations would otherwise be cut to unreasonably low levels, are important and have worked well.
This is not an area in which the Government have closed their minds. It is important to ensure that the relationship between the private and public sectors and between private opencast mines and private deep mines is encouraged. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, despite his usual efficiency, has visited all the 160 privately operated deep mines or the 75 private licensed opencast sites. This private sector already has an important share in the coal industry. I repeat that the private sector is an important part of our great coal industry.
The Bill is the wrong vehicle for a lengthy and major debate on the issues that have been raised, although I recognise their importance. My hon. Friends will know that on many occasions I have said that there are no plans for privatisation. Equally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said that we shall support any move to give the work force—men and management in the industry—a more direct stake in their industry. With this Bill we recognise that, over the past two years, there has been a massive process of restructuring. It has resulted in a stable, viable industry that is capable of offering secure, long-term employment and of contributing positive benefits to the nation.
There will always be restructuring in an extractive industry such as coal mining. The important news for the industry in this legislation is that the major restructuring


of recent years is drawing to a close with the end of the redundant mineworkers' pension scheme at the end of March this year.
The legislation is designed to assist those final steps by which management can achieve its goal and, for the first time, run a great industry independent of handouts from the taxpayer. Our coal industry is the only one in Europe that has that possibility within its grasp, and it is the only coal industry in Europe that is improving productivity. Surely that is justification, if any were needed, of the path that management, with Government support, has taken and the response that it has had from the men.
In those circumstances, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Fallon: With the leave of the House——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House.

Mr. Fallon: We have had a useful debate, perhaps more useful than I could have anticipated. If I understood the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) correctly, alliance Members suggest that they no longer support the monopoly in principle and that they favour transferring the licensing power from the board to the Secretary of State. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman because he is well ahead of his alliance colleagues in recognising the importance of markets and competition. His understanding that state regulation and state licensing do not necessarily also mean state provision should be better known on Teesside and also in Stockton, South.
I welcome also the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who have supported my case—one with great eloquence and the other at great length—and who made the case against monopoly. Nobody could seriously defend the monopoly that was enshrined in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
The reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not surprise me as much as it disappointed me. I hope that one thing will result from the debate—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can help me in this—and that is that news of the debate can be leaked back to his Department. Perhaps it could be conveyed, not only to his Department, but by some agency to Hobart House so that those who preserve the monopoly and operate its restrictions can be made a little more aware of the spread of competition and the removal of monopoly that has taken place, not only in other industries, but in other Departments in Whitehall.
I make it clear that in the new clause we were not proposing the privatisation of the coal industry. We were not even suggesting——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to elaborate on the speech that he made when he proposed the new clause to the House.

Mr. Fallon: We were not proposing privatisation or the transfer of ownership of existing assets. However, we suggested that the industry should be opened up to change, private investment, joint ventures and to the competition that could be provided by an expanding independent sector.
It is clear from the debate that that discussion has only just begun and that it will continue. For that reason, I do not wish to press the new clause to a Division, despite much encouragement to do so, because it is clear that, if leave to withdraw the new clause is refused and it is negatived, Opposition Members will be shown to be the defenders of monopoly, privilege and restrictive practice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

COAL INDUSTRY TRUSTS

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
'(5A) Where any functions relating to a trust are exercisable by more than one body of trustees, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the Charity Commissioners may disregard or have regard only to the members of one of those bodies.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Clause 6

OTHER SOCIAL WELFARE BODIES

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
'(6A) The fact that a provision relating to the constitution of a body has been added or amended by an order under this section shall not preclude its subsequent alteration or deletion in accordance with any relevant powers.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have watched the progress of the Bill with interest, because when it was announced in the Gracious Speech that the Bill would proceed there appeared to be considerable hostility to it and cries of how passionately the measure would be opposed. On Second Reading we saw the decision to introduce a major amendment. As has been pointed out, it was a strange amendment, because it totally ignored most of the main clauses. Then we were told that great changes would take place in Committee. Therefore, fearing a long Committee stage with strenuous debates, I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State if he would conduct the proceedings with his usual skill and patience. He did so, but we discovered that we had to deal with only seven minor amendments and one new clause.
Looking at the Bill in its completed stages, intact from any hostility that Opposition Members have expressed, it is interesting to recognise the positive and good things that the Bill carries into operation.
Clause 1, which was strangely opposed by the Opposition, changes the name of the organisation to British Coal. That request was made by the industry because it considered that the marketing of its product would be substantially improved by having such a title, which would appeal to people because they would know that they would be buying a product that was made in this country. That would be clearly understood and would be far better for advertising purposes than the more complicated title of the National Coal Board.
However, that request by the marketing side of the industry was, strangely, totally opposed by Opposition Members who considered that it was an extraordinary plot


to privatise the industry. If in the near future we were to privatise the industry, we could easily and speedily give the organisation any name that we wish. However, the title of British Coal is welcomed by the marketing side of the coal industry.
Of course, we hope that the marketing side will be extremely successful in the years to come. It is involved in a wide range of new products and technologies, especially in the domestic market. I wish that marketing drive every success. Those concerned will appreciate that my hon. Friends are sympathetic to their application that the title of British Coal should be granted, and will be appalled by the manner in which the clause has been attacked by Opposition Members.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill set out a series of financial arrangements. Once again, nobody can but claim that the financial arrangements put into place by the Bill are exceedingly beneficial to the industry as a whole, and that they express very firmly the Government's confidence in the important place that the industry will have in the future.
No other coal industry in Western Europe can look forward in the next three years to £2 billion of capital investment. While the coal industries in the rest of Western Europe have declined, especially in countries that have recently been under Socialist control, in this country the industry will enjoy £2 billion of further capital investment to improve its productivity and the way in which it can produce coal at a price that can compete with other energies and fuels in the market.
The financial background is generous in carrying on the provisions for those who have become voluntarily redundant during a period of major rationalisation of the industry. Anybody with an interest in the industry must consider the degree of rationalisation that has taken place. After the considerable change in manpower that has occurred, present levels of coal production are close to what they were before rationalisation, but are achieved at far lower cost and with far higher productivity.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Secretary of State will not forget that that rationalisation, which includes the closure of Whittle colliery in my constituency—which was accepted on geological grounds by the National Union of Mineworkers—involves major social problems for the areas concerned, and that he cannot leave solely to other Ministers, who decide matters such as development area status, the responsibility for the consequences in those areas.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that some of the financial provisions that we are making in the Bill have enabled financial support to be given to the enterprise company that has done such remarkable work in bringing jobs to coal mining areas where pits have had to close. It is a new concept. A total of 168,000 men were made redundant during periods of Labour Government and there was no such enterprise company in operation. On present trends, that enterprise company, with substantial financing, will produce, I hope, about 25,000 new jobs in mining areas. Those jobs will be far better than working in a declining mine and they may well produce expansion in the future.
The clauses of the Bill that were significant and important in every sense were clauses 5, 6 and 7. They gave the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, among others, its

proper right to representation on the various social funds and pension funds to which it has every entitlement. Conservative Members expressed their surprise at the negative approach taken by the Labour party when we discussed that on Second Reading. I referred to it as the "Scargill silence". I must say that the silence continued in Committee. In debate after debate on clauses 5, 6 and 7 the Opposition Members sat silent. When they were given an opportunity to vote and express their view, they decided on a policy of abstention on this vital issue. Therefore, there are tens of thousands of mineworkers who know that the Labour party had no wish for the men to have proper representation on the administration of the pension funds concerned.
The Labour party wishes to continue the ban on the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. That ban was first imposed by the Labour party, which refused to have any political affiliation with the union, and it was also imposed by the Trades Union Congress, which refused to allow it to be part of the TUC. Through the Bill's various stages, we have seen the Labour party's determination not to recognise a perfectly democratic union. In fact, it was the UDM that maintained the old tradition of the National Union of Mineworkers to have a democratic vote before taking industrial action.
I know that later today the finances of the NUM will be disclosed. That will reveal the considerable financial problems it faces. It will reveal that its own statements, made at its own meetings, show the great difficulty being experienced in meeting its obligations. There will be a suggestion that the union will need substantially increased contributions if it is to maintain solvency. The NUM's leadership did much damage to the mining industry by not giving proper democratic rights to the UDM. It was the NUM's actions that resulted in the creation of the UDM. I hope that miners throughout the country will recognise that the "Scargill silence" of the Labour party is bad not only for that party but for the NUM.
The Bill provides appropriate financial arrangements. It helps the Coal Board to provide better marketing activities and gives a democratic right to a democratic union. I believe that the coal industry and the country will judge it to be a fine piece of legislation and will be shocked at the Labour party's attitude to it.

Mr. Orme: Since April 1985 there have been more than 55,000 redundancies in the coal industry, 59 pits have closed or merged, and colliery capacity has fallen to 90 million tonnes of deep-mined coal. Unmployment in coalfield communities has gone sky-high, and 14 of the 22 travel-to-work areas that saw the highest rise in unemployment between January 1985 and April 1986 were coal communities. The Bill is the Government's response to that devastation. It is a pathetic and unsatisfactory response. It will do nothing for the industry. It will not improve morale or restore good industrial relations.
On Second Reading and in Committee, we argued that this is a pit closure Bill. We maintain that that is the case. The Bill sets the pre-conditions for a further round of pit closures and redundancies. The financial provisions are totally inadequate to provide a secure and expanding future for the industry. Indeed, they are mainly to cover redundancy, redeployment and pit closures.
The Government have no vision of an expanding British economy. Therefore, they have no vision of


increased electricity demand. They are sanguine about the run-down of a basic British industry that provides the fuel for manufacturing, hospitals, schools, heating homes and electricity generation. The Government's complacency, so vividly shown in yesterday's debate, is once again reflected in the financial provisions of this Bill. We have received no satisfactory answer to our anxiety that the provisions will not even cover those categories for which it is designed. We remain unconvinced that the Bill does not pave the way for the privatisation of the industry. We have just had an interesting debate on that point. Privatisation is certainly popular among Government Back Benchers, as we have witnessed, and Ministers' denials have become increasingly vague, not least the reply that we have just heard from the Under-Secretary of State. Already, ancillaries such as Associated Heat Services have been sold off in what can be only a trimming exercise. The accelerated sale of NCB houses at auctions at the Kensington Hilton has not provided the NCB with a vast amount of revenue and it has caused great distress and confusion in many coalfield communities. I understand that even today many of my hon. Friends have been to see the NCB about those outrageous sales.
The Bill will do nothing to restore morale in the industry. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in Committee we did not argue or vote against clauses 5, 6 and 7. However, we did argue that they would not solve the very real industrial relations problems throughout British coalfields. To rectify that, we introduced a new clause to cover every pit in the coalfields. The Secretary of State did not even mention that clause in his speech. We believe that trade unions have a right to recognition and that they must have the right to represent and negotiate on behalf of their members. That is currently being denied to minorities in British coalfields.
In Committee, the Minister seemed to be under the impression that members of minority unions were not discriminated against and, in some cases, victimised when carrying out legitimate union activity. In Committee, I gave some specific examples of that. I should like to put on record a letter that has been sent to me by Mr. Richardson of the Nottinghamshire area NUM. It is a copy of a letter that was sent by Mr. A. A. Searle of the NCB, who is the manager of the Bolsover pit. The letter states:
Dear Mr. Wright, I refer to your interview in my office on Wednesday 17th December 1986 and write to confirm the remarks I made at that time. You were observed in the Colliery Canteen on the evening of Tuesday, 16th December, 1986 between 9.30 pm and 10 pm talking to the night shift. I warned you that you must not repeat this exercise at any time in the future and any recurrence will lead to your instant and summary dismissal. You must not, either during or outside of your shift, conduct NUM business on British Coal premises whilst the union is not recognised at the Bolsover colliery.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is worth recording that at the Bolsover colliery the NUM has the majority membership. The incident mentioned in the letter followed the one in which Geoffrey Poulter, the branch secretary of the NUM at Bolsover, was sacked only a week or 10 days before the letter went to the branch delegate, Stephen Wright, who is one of my constituents. This smacks of a big brother attitude by the management at Bolsover, and it is being supported by those Ministers who are happy to

talk about minorities, freedom and justice, provided it is for one particular section. They are quite happy to see the thought police of the Coal Board operating against the NUM.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member should be brief.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes the case for our new clause. We put it to the Under-Secretary in Committee that that sort of victimisation and discrimination was taking place, and he denied it. Here is an instance of trade union members being denied basic human rights within the mining industry at present.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I appreciate that some words and phrases are unparliamentary. However, will the right hon. Gentleman dispel the impression that we had upstairs and say something downstairs, if he is allowed to use the phrase, about the Union of Democratic Mineworkers?

Mr. Orme: We said that we were moving the new clause, and that if the Government accepted it we would accept without qualification clauses 5, 6 and 7. This clause—this is the important point—will give minority rights not only to the NUM in Nottingham or elsewhere, but also to UDM members in other parts of the British coalfields. Examples such as the one I have just given led us to introduce our new clause in Committee—a new clause that would ensure fair play for all unions. The Government's response proved that that is the last thing that they are interested in.
We are opposed to the terms that the Government have put forward. They would not accept a democratically drawn up new clause. It is upon that basis that we are right in our opposition and right in the case that we have put for the British coal industry. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I support the Third Reading of the Bill. This 18th Coal Industry Bill will have greater significance in terms of future security and prosperity for the industry and its employees than all its predecessors. I include the original nationalisation Bill of 1946. That Bill heralded so much promise for the country and its miners. In hindsight, we know that it failed on both counts. The coal barons were replaced by a highly motivated political trade union, more interested in political domination than in its duty to ensure its members' continuing prosperity.
This Bill, by comparison, brings the coal industry ultimately into the 20th century and sets the course to make it one of Britain's most successful industries in the 21st century. British coal is a sunrise industry with reserves that will last almost 300 years. The usage of coal will gradually change from mainly power station burning and domestic use to replacing our oil and gas requirements, whose known reserves will last no more than 25 years. To replace today's oil and gas requirements from coal, we will need to mine 180 million tonnes. Our European partners have few workable coal reserves left, so there is also an export potential. Derivatives from coal will be used for the raw stock of many of our chemical manufacturers. At the moment, 25 derivatives are used, and in time this number must rise.
During the passage of this Bill, like its predecessors, we heard more of the history of the coal industry than its future from the Opposition. Let the past be a guide to the future, but do not let the Opposition's political dogma cloud the prospects of the exciting future of this great industry.
What some people describe as "blighted reserves" will in time be gasified underground for direct use, leaving the more accessible seams to be brought to the surface. This Bill will guarantee not only the miners' prosperity, but also their security of employment for years to come. Accepting the scientific evidence available, no miner need fear the competition from nuclear energy. There will be no conflict, because coal will be required for other purposes, and in the not too distant future will be too valuable to contemplate burning. That is why I am confident of the long-term prospects for the coal industry. That, coupled with the other clauses in this Bill, will give the Union of Democratic Mineworkers its rightful place in representing its members' interests socially and industrially.
In my maiden speech I said that I was proud to be the Member of Parliament for Sherwood, Britain's largest mining constituency. That is nothing compared with how I feel towards my mining constituents and their families today. Their fight for survival during the year-long dispute, and the birth of trade union democracy, was won through their determination and guts for survival, despite the collusion between the Labour party and the NUM for their destruction. The UDM is here to stay. Its leaders' professionalism and adherence to democratic principles will ensure that, and in time it will be the only union representing mineworkers, because the ramshackle organisation in Sheffield called the NUM is bereft of principles and money.
I can speak only for my own constituents. I do not speak for the miners of Ashfield, because the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is in the Chamber. Nevertheless, I hope that I speak on this occasion for all the other Nottinghamshire miners in thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), for bringing this Bill forward, guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of the UDM, and securing the future of British Coal. So far the Labour party has not recognised the UDM. Do you intend to do so today? I shall give way——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not bring me into these matters. He is bringing the UDM into these matters a little too much. On Third Reading we must confine ourselves to what is in the Bill. I do not find any reference to that organisation in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the Labour party intend to recognise the UDM?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will neither give way nor find it necessary to invite anyone to give way because the Bill is not about the matters to which he is addressing himself.

Mr. Stewart: Will the Opposition recognise both trade unions working in the mining industry?
I remind the House and the country that there is no substitute for coal, but coal can be substituted for any other fossil fuel and its derivitives. That is the long-term guarantee of security for Britain's greatest industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have about 50 minutes left and about 15 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The difficulties will be obvious.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: May I begin by picking up two points made by the Secretary of State? First, he referred to the opposition to the Bill from the Opposition Benches. For the record, I think that he will concede that that is not entirely accurate. The Opposition on the Benches occupied by my right hon. and hon. Friends have given the Bill fullhearted support from Second Reading through Committee and will do so again on Third Reading.
Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. I do not want to pursue the point at any length, but he will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), myself and others pressed him to establish that body for a long time before he eventually got round to doing so. We are delighted that it is succeeding in the way that it is, and we are delighted that he has increased its funding so that it can carry out the excellent work that it is doing in the areas where collieries have been closed. I only wish that even more could be done.
We support the Bill because it continues to give the financial support which the industry rightly deserves and needs.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I must not give way to the hon. Gentleman, otherwise I shall prevent others from speaking.
The Bill gives much needed financial support to the industry and therefore deserves the support of the House. It also deserves support for the rights which it gives to the UDM to be represented in the trusts and welfare bodies from which it has been excluded by the NUM. Despite the efforts that have been made and the negotiations that have taken place, the union has not been able to obtain the places which any reasonable person would accept were its right. Substantial bodies of workers are represented by the new union and they have every right to be represented on the bodies that are there to serve the people in the mining industry.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I shall give way, but it will prevent other hon. Members from speaking.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When the hon. Gentleman says "we", is he describing the Social Democratic party or the alliance?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am speaking for the alliance in this debate as, indeed, in other debates.
If the Labour party has the true interests of the mining industry at heart, it will reject the dog-in-the-manger attitude which the NUM's leadership has adopted since the strike ended. The sooner the divisions that exist within the mining industry are overcome, the better for everyone. They will not be overcome—they would take a long time to be overcome in any case—unless there is an attempt by those within bodies, not only in the mining industry but outside, to help to bring about reconciliation.
If the Labour party continues to give Canute-like support to Mr. Scargill and the NUM's leadership, there


will never be any move in the direction of reconciliation between the warring factions in the mining industry. It is in no one's interests that that battle should continue for ever and a day. It will be impossible to overcome the fierce antagonisms and feelings that arose from the violence and intimidation that occurred during the dispute. I have condemned many times the lack of criticism during the dispute from the Labour Benches of the violence and intimidation that took place at that time.
But life goes on, and if we are to have a successful industry and prosperity in the mining areas, it is in everyone's interests, and in the national interest, that attempts should be made to achieve reconciliation. That will not be achieved by excluding the UDM and hoping that it will go away. It will not. It will continue to represent, courageously and well, its members, not only in the Nottinghamshire area, but in many other areas. Undoubtedly, if it continues with the guts and determination that it has shown since it started, it will go from strength to strength. The sooner that the Labour party acknowledges that fact, the sooner there will be a hope of some reconciliation and change in the future.
I hope that the more sensible Members of the House will acknowledge that view. My hope may be in vain. Indeed, if the Bill's proceedings have been anything to go by, I certainly do hope in vain. The Labour party sat on its hands and said nothing on the relevant clauses in Committee. As has been said, it is disgraceful that Labour Members made no comment whatever.
Finally, I want to pay, as will all hon. Members, a great tribute to the management and workers, both in the NUM and the UDM, in the mining industry for the way in which they have worked and succeeded since the strike ended. I hope that the Bill will enable them to build on the success that they have achieved—productivity levels that have never been achieved in the coal mining industry before. I hope that the Bill will help to bring about even further success in the industry and that is why we shall give it our full support tonight.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I start by expressing my thanks to the Government for fulfilling their pledges in introducing the Bill. Those thanks come not just from me, but from the miners of Nottinghamshire, whose pensions, welfare and social rights are so much affected by the Bill, and also from the residents of Nottingham who experienced many difficult months during the miners' strike.
The need for the Bill came about when the UDM split from the NUM in 1985 because it could not accept the new rule book which it had supported for 40 years before the split. It was simply because the NUM became undemocratic. The NUM had ignored the role of the ballot box during the miners' strike and had changed the majority which was needed for a strike from 55 per cent. to 50 per cent.
The changes in the rule book also removed autonomy from certain areas. A disciplinary rule was brought in and in Durham 400 men were expelled, many of whom were members of the UDM. All those changes were introduced in one block vote at the NUM conference in 1985. As a

result of that, from which came the need to introduce the Bill, the UDM decided to split from the NUM in the summer of 1985——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant and flexible about the debate so far, but the hon. Gentleman is really going too far. None of those matters is germane on Third Reading.

Mr. Ottaway: I am only trying to demonstrate why we have the Bill and why I am grateful to the Government for introducing it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That might have been appropriate on Second Reading, but not on Third Reading. We have the Bill and it has been debated by the House.

Mr. Ottaway: The truth of the matter is that the TUC is not prepared to recognise all the miners' unions in Britain——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant and we have had a wide debate, but, as far as I can see, there is no reference in the Bill to the TUC. It really is going too far to start bringing it in. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal more closely with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Ottaway: I am merely trying to refer to the situation that resulted in the need for the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is departing from what is permissible on Third Reading. If he persists in doing so, I shall have no option but to instruct him to resume his seat.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall abide by your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition opposed the Bill on Second Reading and that is an affront to democracy and the mining unions in the Nottinghamshire area. The Opposition have sought to deny the UDM's participation in the pension, social and welfare funds of the coal industry.
The only contribution made by the Opposition in this debate about the other union in the industry was an amendment in Committee which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) spoke about on Third Reading. He said that he was prepared to barter across the Dispatch Box certain rights affecting representation and contributions in the various British Coal committees. For him to say that is a disgrace, and the people of Nottinghamshire will find it a disgrace. The only objective of the new clause was to give rights to the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
Apart from 30 seconds from the right hon. Member for Salford, East on Second Reading, we have had complete silence from the Opposition. That silence has spread from the House. Just the other day I received a challenge from my opposition, the Labour party candidate in the forthcoming general election. He challenged me to a debate on any issue that I cared to name. I said to him, "There is a brave lad." I challenged him to a debate on the future of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. I found that the disease of lockjaw which has hit the Opposition in this debate had spread to Nottinghamshire, because since I accepted his challenge I have not heard a word from him. This demonstrates the Labour party's hostility to the people of Nottinghamshire and the UDM.
This is almost certainly a general election year, and I do not deny that I will have a difficult time in that election


because mine is a marginal seat. Whatever the outcome of that election, as I campaign in the streets in Nottinghamshire and in Bulwell in the weeks leading up to the election at least I will be able to hold my head high and say that, unlike the Labour party, I was prepared to stand up for the people of Nottinghamshire. This is a sorry episode for the Labour party and I can assure Opposition Members that their actions will not be forgotten in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friends raised the matter of minorities as it affects the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I should like to put on record the fact that the NUM has been making a great impact on that coalfield and the minority is getting larger all the time. To that extent I have no doubt that they will find some favour with the Minister.
I am worried that this Bill could be regarded as a prelude to privatisation and has nothing to do with the cries that we have heard in this debate. We heard cries from Conservative Members, some of whom have now left the Chamber, when debating new clause 1 and the Minister found himself in something of a quandary in responding to the catcalls. If the Government are reelected, the National Coal Board, or British Coal, as it is soon to be called, would be a prime object for privatisation.
The Tory Government are hell bent on destroying British Coal and on attempting to destroy the NUM in the process. The Government have been engaged in that exercise for the past two or three years and are now getting the industry ready for the spivs and racketeers.—[Interruption]—most of whom are represented on the Government Benches. The matter of privatisation has already been touched upon in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Privatisation was debated in the course of our earlier proceedings when there was an amendment before the House. At that time it might have been appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make the speech that he is seeking to make now. However, we are now on Third Reading.

Mr. Skinner: We are on Third Reading of a Bill containing sums of money to enable British Coal to operate. Many of us think that that sum is insufficient to meet the needs of the industry on a long-term basis. If that is our argument, it follows that that shortage of money can lead to a change in ownership of British Coal. That could mean privatisation and we say strongly that we are against that. The road that I have just trod was long and tortuous, but it has brought me to anti-privatisation. If the smart Alecs on the Government Benches had been sharp enough to understand that, they too might have been able to prepare better speeches than the ones from which they read.

Mr. Andy Stewart: What is the hon. Gentleman doing?

Mr. Skinner: I am not reading, I have had to sort out my speech on my feet and that is not always easy.
We are worried about the future of the industry and this Bill does nothing for its long-term future. It is all about doing something for today, for the moment, to try to get this Tory Government over another hump for another 12 months. We have argued throughout the passage of the

Bill and before that our aim for the industry from which we come is to see our 300-year supply of coal developed in a way that maximises its potential energy.

Mr. Ottaway: On a point of order. Is there any difference between what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is saying and what I was saying? You told me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not challenge my ruling in that way. I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I am glad that his latter remarks were a little nearer to the substance of what is proper in this debate than were his earlier remarks.

Mr. Skinner: If we argue that in the Bill insufficient money is being allocated to the mining industry, then we can argue that from a long-term point of view the money is insufficient to meet its needs. We argue that there should be no redundancies and that mines should be kept open. Some of us would argue that some of the mines that were closed ought to be reopened. A future Labour Government will exploit those 300 years of reserves and produce the money that is lacking in this Bill in order to ensure that more people are employed.
With a view to dealing with the after effects of this Bill and other Bills, this morning some of us went to see British Coal about the scandalous way in which it is selling off houses in which many miners with more than 40 years experience of working underground live. [Interruption.] Housing is mentioned in the Bill. At that meeting the British Coal representatives were as hard and stony faced as Conservative Members. They do not care about the housing of those miners and are not worried about the pensioners. Their only concern is to sell off the houses to the spivs and the Rachmanites and the racketeers who sit like leeches on the periphery of the coalfields waiting to make a big fat killing. Many such people are represented by Government hon. Members. We want to put that right and when we get back to government we will change that part of the Bill because it is obnoxious to those who have served the industry so well.
The Bill provides insufficient money to meet the needs of widows and others who still do not receive concessionary coal, even though some pits were closed before 1968. I notice that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) is missing. I have raised this matter time and time again. The Bill does not provide compensation for those people, and the Opposition want to have the opportunity to put that right.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: During the passage of the Bill many of my colleagues and I have been puzzled about the Labour party's ambivalent attitude towards those provisions that would lead to fairness in representation on the superannuation schemes and in the industry's institutions. I refer in particular to the provisions of clause 7.
I suspected during the passage of the Bill, particularly in Committee, that we were hearing not about the real reasons for opposition but about a cover-up being perpetrated by the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. My fears have been fully vindicated. A document has come into my possession that arouses real concern for all those pensioners in the industry who have


been represented thus far by the NUM in the industry's superannuation schemes. Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that clause 7 will protect adequately the rights of individuals and that it will ensure that unsuitable people are not appointed as representatives on the boards of superannuation schemes?
I refer to the financial report that was presented to the finance and general purposes sub-committee of the NUM on 13 November 1986. Its implications are stunning. As time is short, I shall refer only to short extracts, but I shall make a full copy of the document available as soon as the debate is over. It reveals that the NUM has a deficit of nearly £1·85 million and that it has no resources with which to meet it. The report is relevant to clause 7, because it reveals that the NUM is about to default on its superannuation schemes. These passages must be brought to the attention of the House so that my hon. Friends——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how the internal finances of the NUM are relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Batiste: This is a matter of the gravest importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From the brief extracts that I wish to read to the House, it is quite clear that the NUM is about to default on its superannuation payments and that it has no money with which to make them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must tell me why that is relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Batiste: I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 7(4) of the Bill says:
References in this section to participation by an organisation include participation by any person as a nominee or on behalf of the organisation.
There may be grave cause for investigation of the way in which certain persons have exercised their judgment in relation to the NUM's superannuation scheme. I am not sure that there are sufficient powers in the Bill to prevent such unsuitable persons from being nominated by the trade union as representatives on the boards of the industry's superannuation schemes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are factors that the Secretary of State will undoubtedly take into account when exercising the discretion that the Bill confers upon him, but I am not sure that it is appropriate for the House to go into the internal affairs of another organisation.

Mr. Batiste: I raise the matter now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am not at all clear, having read the clause, whether the Secretary of State has such a discretion. I seek that assurance by raising these very important matters, albeit very briefly. One brief passage will give you clear evidence of my concern and why I think that the matter is relevant. It says:
The National Union has an obligation to pay approximately £450,000 per year to the Officials and Staff Superannuation Scheme.
Unless action is taken, the superannuation scheme could be in very serious difficulties. The report states specifically that the union's ability to operate is threatened and that it is not in a position to meet its continuing obligations. The union is in arrears to the superannuation scheme and is unable to fulfil its financial commitments to its retiring officials and staff.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear whether the references that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw to the attention of the House are references to the internal superannuation scheme of that organisation or whether they refer to the scheme that is dealt with in the Bill. I suspect that they are different schemes.

Mr. Batiste: In that respect you may be right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an internal scheme, but there may be people who are involved with both and the rights of those people will be intertwined.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is discussing a Bill that refers to a statutory scheme for the industry. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw the attention of the House to a scheme that relates entirely to the staff and members of the NUM, that has nothing to do with the House and it is out of order.

Mr. Batiste: I was not seeking to do any such thing. However, I am trying to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill must provide some interpretation of what is meant by clause 7(4). I repeat that it says:
References in this section to participation by an organisation include participation by any person as a nominee or on behalf of the organisation.
If a person under the general law of trust is unfit as a trustee to run one superannuation scheme, there has to be a power——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to show that there are internal developments within an organisation that is entitled to nominate people under the Bill that make that organisation unsuitable. That is not an argument to which the House can listen on Third Reading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get away from that point.

Mr. Batiste: Without in any way wanting to challenge that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I fully accept, the fact remains that as it stands the Bill contains powers to permit the appointment to the boards of the industry's superannuation schemes of people who, by virtue of the points that I should like to raise, if I were permitted to do so, would be manifestly unsuitable. Can any organisation nominate whomsoever it wishes, irrespective of investigation——

Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I pass to you a copy of the notes on clauses that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was given at the Committee's first sitting? Clause 7 says nothing about who will represent the organisations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not being as helpful as he wished to be. However; the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is straining the patience of the House. He is certainly straining mine and he is abusing the limits of the conventions of debate on Third Reading. I hope that we can get away from the internal affairs of an organisation and discuss the Bill. If not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat, because in the very limited time that is available a large number of hon. Members wish to make a contribution to the debate.

Mr. Batiste: I shall not intrude upon the patience of the House, because I shall release this document and will not quote further from it. I have already made the points that I wished to raise.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Batiste: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not doing so, as time is short.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on hoard the point that it is necessary to have the power to prevent unsuitable people from being appointed by organisations to these boards. I am not sure whether the Bill contains that power. I seek guidance on that point.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is not referring to a commercial organisation, but, if he were, would he be using the word "bankrupt" in this context?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again I must remind the House that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Coal Industry Bill. This is an inappropriate time to discuss matters that may or may not have been included in the Bill and that are not relevant to the Third Reading debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Elmet will either deal with relevant Third Reading points or allow other hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate to do so.

Mr. Batiste: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will intrude no further on your patience in this matter, save to make what is a perfectly germane and proper point in the context of the debate on Third Reading. One of the most important things that any person who has worked hard throughout his life is concerned with is that, in the management of his pension fund or superannuation scheme, he will be properly represented. That lies at the core of what we have been proposing in clause 7 of this Bill.
I am seriously concerned that this Bill—and it is on this that I seek advice—may not have sufficient powers within it to ensure that the Secretary of State can reject nominees who are, by any reckoning, unsuitable on the basis of the way in which they have managed other superannuation schemes. That concerns the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is a matter to which I shall return in great detail as this document is made public later.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall be both brief and relevant. That will be quite refreshing after the speeches that we have heard from hon. Members on the Government side today. From the beginning of this afternoon's consideration of this Bill, we have heard dogma and attempts to fuel division. Remarkably little attention has been paid to the coal industry about which we are supposed to be concerned. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) seeks to extract himself from criticism, but when he looks back at his speech he will see that he has sought to capitalise on division rather than pursue a course which would serve the future of the industry and promote healing within the industry. I accept that the hon. Member did refer to the important markets which must exist for coal, and it is that to which I wish to draw attention.
The Minister will accept that the answer that he gave me today to a question that I put down because of the Third Reading of this Bill is a cause for enormous concern, a concern which I hope will be shared by every hon. Member on the Government side. After the serious consideration that the Government are supposed to have given to the Bill I get this answer to the question that I asked today.
I asked the Minister to say

from which countries coal has been imported during the past 12 months; and what information he has in each case as to the extent to which the United Kingdom price of that coal properly reflects the cost of the production, marketing and distribution.
The answer is that we have imported coal in the past 12 months not only from Australia and the United States but from South Africa, Poland, Canada, West Germany——

Mr. David Ashby: What has this got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Hardy: It has a lot to do with the Bill, as will demonstrate. Coal also has come from the Netherlands, Belgium and Colombia.
The Minister will argue that the Government have put money into the industry. The Minister will argue that the Government have provided money for the industry to meet national need. Yet we are paying not the slightest attention to whether our industry is exposed to unfair competition because of dumping by other countries. These countries include South Africa, which allows mining activities that are grossly unsafe. I hope that in the next few days the Minister will look at the example set by West Germany, where the Government and the mining trade unions appear to be moving towards concerted action to respond to the grossly unsafe activity at collieries in South Africa. It would be rather nice if the European response was one of unity.
A few months ago—and this is very relevant to the Third Reading because it follows a point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood—the Minister said that Sleipner gas should not be landed in Britain because we had discovered more gas offshore and could maintain our self-sufficiency. The other reason was that the Government did not want to be in a position of having to pay good money to foreign countries to import gas. Although some Government Members believe, and have said several times recently, that we can easily import cheap coal over the next 20 or 30 years, I suggest that it would be as foolish for us to get into a position of dependence on imported coal as it would have been to get into a similar position with imported gas. We have a great opportunity to build on the reserves to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If we are to do so, the Government must go further and recognise the logic of the enormous increases in productivity that have been achieved in recent months. If those increases in productivity are to have any logic, if the Government are to pursue any degree of consistency, they should make it clear to the country that our future is based on British coal rather than on developing the level of imports which some hon. Members on the Government Benches might like to see.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I intervene in the debate briefly and, I hope, relevantly to underline one point, which is that the Bill recognises that there is now more than one major union in the mining industry. It is significant that it took the Government and this Bill to enable this to be done. It is significant that the Opposition have denied that it should be done. I tried to intervene earlier during the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) to ask him his intentions as regards the union which we are not allowed to mention because it is not in the Bill. I asked whether he and his


party believed that it had a right to democratic decisions on matters in that industry. I have so far heard nothing from the Opposition to indicate that they are supportive of people's democratic rights in the industry.
Listening to the barracking of some of the Opposition Members, who suggested that my hon. Friends were spivs or city slickers or somehow in the pay of dishonourable people, I found it a little rich, coming as it did largely from hon. Members who themselves are paid and sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. They did not declare their interests when they spoke for the mining industry, and I find it a bit thick that they should unjustifiably accuse my hon. Friends of being dishonourable in the things that they said and wanted to do.
If Opposition Members believe in democracy, I hope that their spokesmen will say so in the few moments left for the consideration of this Bill. The Bill is designed to give greater democracy. We on the Government side believe in democracy. We have yet to hear anyone on the Opposition Benches say that this is what the Bill is about and that they support it.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: This Bill is purely a stage in preparation for the privatisation of the mining industry. At no time during the Second Reading or in Committee or today has anyone flatly denied that. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State take his place again. Earlier on he seemed very pleased about the achievements of the mining industry in recent months. If people want to crow about 59 pit closures, about 55,000 redundancies since the miners' strike, about wiping out mining communities, they can do so, but I do not believe that these can be called successes. Whatever they are, the Government have created on this run-up to privatisation, on the run-up to this Bill, unemployment and misery in these communities.
The Secretary of State referred to the enterprise scheme. I do not wish to knock that scheme and I never have done, but it is a fact that in my own area, which has suffered severely through the pit closure programme, I have been able to indentify only two jobs created by the Coal Board's enterprise scheme. After my speech during the Second Reading of the Bill, a high-ranking official of the Coal Board took it on himself to write to the local press and question my figures. It was obvious that he had not read my speech. Would I investigate with that senior official? Because, he said, his figures differed from mine: he thought that there were four jobs, 100 per cent. more.
The Government have continued to pile on the agony. To enable the industry to break even by 1988 they are savagely attacking the housing stock of the Coal Board. I went recently to the Kensington Hilton when houses were being auctioned. What I saw was repulsive. There were racketeers and property speculators; you name it, they were there bidding. I recognise that the Government have done all this to the mining people in an attempt to run down the industry rapidly so as to prepare for privatisation.

Mr. Barron: On the housing stock, I understand that the Coal Board has temporarily suspended sales. This morning I received a letter sent on behalf of a Mr. T. Ward, 21 Coronation Avenue, Kiveton Park, whose house

was sold late last year. It has now been resold to someone in London. Utter confusion has been created because people do not know from one month to the next who their landlord is or what protection they have.

Mr. Lofthouse: That is the case. One lady, the wife of a disabled miner, attempted to purchase her property but could not get a mortgage before the closing date. She then went to the auction to try to buy the house. She was unsuccessful because a speculator or racketeer bought the whole block. Within two days someone was knocking at her door, offering her the house for a profit of over 30 per cent. That is what the Government have done to the mining community, the miners and their families.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) talked about 300 years of reserves. If the Government continue to rape the mining industry, the reserves will be down to 50 years.

Mr. David Ashby: I welcome the Bill, which will be particularly welcome in south Derbyshire and to the UDM at Rawdon and Ellistown collieries. The most amazing thing has happened. We have heard a great deal of opposition to the Bill on Second Reading, on Report and now. It is said that the reason for the opposition is that the Bill is a prelude to the privatisation of the Coal Board. Of course, the true reason for the opposition has been exposed today. A rearguard action is being fought by Opposition Members with close affiliations to an association which we now know to be bankrupt. We know that people in that organisation have been acting in breach of trust and that the organisation should be the subject of an inquiry. The funding of the NUM should be inquired into. The Labour party has tried desperately to keep the NUM as the sole and supreme union in the mining industry and to exclude the UDM. That is why it has opposed the Bill.
The local leader of the UDM in my constituency, someone by the name of Horace Sankey, has been trying to do a deal with the local Labour party which has said that it is not opposed to the Bill nor to the UDM. I have said several times that the miners are being misled by the local UDM leader because he has close affiliations with the Labour party. The true picture is that the Labour party is opposed——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has heard me chide other hon. Members for straying beyond the limits of a proper debate on Third Reading. There is nothing in the Bill about the Labour party. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get back to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Ashby: There is opposition to the Bill from the major Opposition party, which I believe is known as the Labour party. People in my constituency should know the reason for that opposition. The opposition relates entirely to the fact that the Labour party knows the precarious state that the NUM is in and is trying to maintain a bankrupt union.
We heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) who has been fighting a long action in support of the extension of the concessionary coal allowance, an action on which I have supported him. Not for the first time have we heard the hon. Member for Bolsover try to claim for himself a campaign in which he


had no interest. Time and time again I have challenged him to say that he was in the least bit interested in concessionary coal allowances. Belatedly, realising his position, he has started to claim for himself something that he has no right to claim. I notice that he is not in the Chamber now. He made his allegation and disappeared, which is typical of him.

Mr. Walter Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not right that, when an hon. Member intends to attack another hon. Member, he gives notification to that hon. Member that he will do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a convention of the House.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Member for Bolsover came in, made a number of ridiculous allegations, used the foulest language in respect of hon. Members and then disappeared. He does not deserve to be told of any proposed attack.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend agree that to be railed at and insulted in such a way by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is probably the surest sign that a Member is an honourable Member and is doing his duty properly?

Mr. Ashby: I agree with that observation.
I end my speech as I began. I welcome the Bill which introduces a large measure of democracy and which will give the UDM a voice in areas where it has a right to be heard. Indeed, it is essential that the UDM should have a voice in those areas because of the revelations we have heard about the NUM.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: On Second Reading we warned the House of the great difficulty we would have in Committee of trying to make a job of the Bill because of its political and electioneering aspects. We should not be cynical about it. In Committee we did the best job we could.
When the Secretary of State opened the debate he referred to clause 1. It was right that the House should have some discussion as to why the name of the National Coal Board has been changed to British Coal. We understand that there was no consultation about that. However, we understood from clause 1 that the Government were changing the name and that was that. We therefore had a debate on the subject.
We had a very long debate in Committee about housing. The importance of that topic has been borne out by the scandals that have been revealed about the sales of National Coal Board housing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) raised the subject in an Adjournment debate in which he exposed the scandal about the sale of National Coal Board houses. We had a worthwhile discussion in Committee on that subject.
We have heard little today about the financial provisions in the Bill. Some hon. Members will know that when a money resolution is moved in the House it is very difficult to discuss the financial provisions. Nevertheless, we did as well as we could in Committee on that topic. We tried to warn that even within the NCB there is doubt as to whether the financial provisions in the Bill will be adequate to deal with the problems in the coal industry.

The Opposition must place a marker on that. We have grave doubts as to whether the financial provisions in the Bill will meet the problems in the industry.
The Secretary of State referred to clauses 5, 6 and 7 and how the Opposition sat on their hands and allowed Government Members to articulate their case about giving rights to minority unions. We had good reason to do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) made it perfectly clear that we would cover that point in a new clause. We would test whether Conservative Members were democrats and libertarians like the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who represents the alliance. We proved that they were not libertarians. Under the new clause, all registered trade unions in the mining industry would have rights to bargaining, conciliation and consultation. We received a strange reply from the Minister. He said that it was a Scargill type of amendment despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said that the amendment was based on the convention of the International Labour Organisation. It stretches the imagination to claim that Mr. Scargill drafted the ILO convention. We won the argument and the debate in Committee. I invite any hon. Member to read the reports of the Committee stage. We wiped the floor with the Government. We emerged as the libertarians and democrats because we wanted rights for all, not rights for one particular section.
The Government are impaled to some extent on a Bill that has great political content. It is an electioneering Bill and a pit closure Bill. It will do nothing for the mining industry, and I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote against it.

Mr. David Hunt: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has made many contributions in coal industry debates over the years. However, on reflection, he will consider the contribution he has just made as his worst. He in no way addressed the important issues of the industry. In many ways his spech followed that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who went over the top almost in his first sentence when he described the financial provisions of the Bill as a pathetic response. If he deems as pathetic a Bill that provides at least £1·1 billion for the future of the coal industry, but, much more important, a three-year investment programme of £2 billion following on from an investment programme under this Government of £5 billion, his use of the English language is to be greatly deplored.
We should not just deplore the way in which the right hon. Member for Salford, East used the English language. His lack of use of the English language in Committee is also to be deplored. He and his hon. Friends sat silent on the crucial clauses 5, 6 and 7. That must attract the condemnation of this House.
In relation to the financial provisions, I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway), Elmet (Mr. Batiste), Newark (Mr. Alexander) and Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) that they are correct to recognise that morale and productivity in this great industry are high as the men look to the future with greater confidence than ever before. It is far better for the future of this great industry for us to look to the future now and grasp the opportunities.
The past few years have not been easy for the industry. At least now the possibility exists for the first time of ending the long-standing preoccupation with pit closures and manpower rundown and of replacing that with optimism for the future. I readily grasp that opportunity and, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am proud to be the Minister responsible for coal with such exciting opportunities lying ahead.
However, I want to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) which were ignored by so many Opposition Members—the provisions for fair representation in the industry. As my hon. Friends have explained, unlike the Labour party and like on this occasion the alliance, the Government are committed to the basic principles of democracy that led to the birth of the UDM during those dark days of the miners' dispute. The successful efforts of the working miners to sustain the coal industry——

Mr. Barron: Sponsored by the NUM.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should not ignore this point. I know who is sponsored by the NUM. Let him not follow their line on this point.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the successful efforts of the working miners to sustain the coal industry through that evil and unnecessary strike must never be forgotten. I am afraid that Opposition Members too readily pretend that the efforts of the working miners, now represented through the UDM, will be forgotten. They hope that the UDM will go away. As other hon. Members have stressed, the UDM will not go away.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hunt: I will give way in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet has revealed the scandalous state of affairs that will need urgent examination, in particular, by the miners in the industry. The report to which my hon. Friend referred—and of which the hon. Member for Midlothian is aware—states that those dominated by Scargill have done tremendous damage not only to their industry but also to their union. It is important now to preserve and enhance democracy in the mining industry. Sadly, in Committee, the Labour party was silent and running scared of Scargill. I described Labour Members politely as parliamentary puppets on the Scargill string. By opposing the Bill on a three-line Whip on Second Reading, and by failing to support the vital clauses on fair representation, the Labour party has reneged on the basic principles of union democracy on which the trade union movement was founded.
There is only one explanation for the silence of Labour Members—subservience to Scargill and opposition to the UDM. Of course there is a great future for all those working in the coal industry. However, it must be a fair future—fair for the industry and for its employees.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 126.

Division No. 54]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Alexander, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gow, Ian


Alton, David
Grant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Gregory, Conal


Ancram, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Ashby, David
Ground, Patrick


Ashdown, Paddy
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baldry, Tony
Hanley, Jeremy


Batiste, Spencer
Hannam, John


Beith, A. J.
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bellingham, Henry
Harris, David


Benyon, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hayward, Robert


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry


Bottomley, Peter
Hickmet, Richard


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hind, Kenneth


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hirst, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Howard, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Browne, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bruinvels, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butcher, John
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Carttiss, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kennedy, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Simon
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cormack, Patrick
Lee, John (Pendle)


Corrie, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Couchman, James
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Evennett, David
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Maclean, David John


Fallon, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Farr, Sir John
McQuarrie, Albert


Favell, Anthony
Major, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Malone, Gerald


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Forth, Eric
Merchant, Piers


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Franks, Cecil
Moore, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Neale, Gerrard


Fry, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Galley, Roy
Nicholls, Patrick


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Osborn, Sir John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Ottaway, Richard






Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pollock, Alexander
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powley, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Francis Maude and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Richard Ryder


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkinson, N (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barron, Kevin
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Robert


Blair, Anthony
Clelland, David Gordon


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, Stan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)





Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Park, George


Eadie, Alex
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Prescott, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Foulkes, George
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Richardson, Ms Jo


George, Bruce
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rogers, Allan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, J. W.


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Home Robertson, John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Douglas
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Snape, Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tinn, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert


Loyden, Edward
Weetch, Ken


McCartney, Hugh
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wigley, Dafydd


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Gordon


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Marek, Dr John
Woodall, Alec


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maxton, John



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Michie, William
Mr. Sean Hughes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — City of London (Various Powers) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I undertake this task for several reasons, first, because my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is a Minister, so is debarred from speaking. Secondly, he has been a close colleague and personal friend for more than 20 years and has asked me if I would help him out in this capacity. It also gives me an opportunity to repay some of the great kindnesses shown to me by his late father who was a distinguished Member and Minister in this House.
My City connections are that I am a member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London and that I went to the City of London school. Therefore, I have always taken a great delight in what is done in the City. Tonight is somewhat unusual because the Bill had an unopposed Second Reading, has now come back from Committee and we are having this debate because the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) tabled a blocking motion. Because we are now on Third Reading, which is a different debate from Second Reading, I shall just describe briefly the Bill's three main proposals. I shall not weary the House with descriptions of a vast number of other useful but less important items.
First, I shall talk about the Billingsgate fish market. The City has had rights over Billingsgate for about six centuries. In 1982 the market moved to the Isle of Dogs and that was an example of the City's support for the regeneration of docklands, of which it was a pioneer. The City is a tenant in the Isle of Dogs of the Tower Hamlets borough council with which it has an amicable working arrangement. The market provides about 700 jobs for local people.
As the development of docklands has proceeded, new developments have come along and new schemes and roads have been required. The boundary of the present market may need to be adjusted to fit in with those proposals. Part of the Bill allows for that adjustment and it is proposed to achieve that by what seems to be the best solution, which is an exchange of land. That will also give an opportunity for straightening an irregular site. The City has had discussions with the market traders and the Transport and General Workers Union. As a result, certain amendments will be proposed in the other place to specify the clause's objectives in terms of land exchange. The proposals have the full support of the traders and of the union.
Secondly, there is the question of street trading, which is covered in clauses 5 to 15 and basically covers what Londoners know as Petticoat lane. When in about the mid-1960s there was a major road improvement scheme in Aldgate, several stall-holders with pitches in the Sunday market in that part of Middlesex street which is now in Tower Hamlets were displaced. I am sure that I am not alone in being among those who have gone happily to Petticoat lane. I do not share the experience of some people of having their own watch sold back to them at the other end of the market but it was a pleasant visit.
The City agreed to accommodate the traders and a system of licensing was provided under the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965. Under that Act each of the

then displaced traders was entitled to a licence and also to nominate a successor to his pitch on his death. The legislation did not provide for further nominations or for granting street trading licences to others. If that position continued, the Middlesex street market—Petticoat lane—would die. The traders did not wish that to happen and they asked for the City's help. Although it was not obliged to do so, the City agreed to remedy that defect under this Bill and a new code was provided to enable the City to grant further street trading licences. The traders strongly support the Bill's proposals.
I should perhaps put one gloss on street trading, and that is to be found in clause 15, which deals with street photographers. Many of those who operate around Petticoat lane are a nuisance. They operate with pet monkeys and parrots and they let the monkeys hop on to people's shoulders and frighten them. It is considered that there should be licensing of photographers such as the licensing that exists in a vast number of other Acts. There is a clause similar to the one in this Bill in the Greater Manchester Act 1981, the West Midlands County Council Act 1980, the County of Merseyside Act 1980 and the Clwyd Act 1985. So there would be by no means any precedent being created. I stress that the licensing will not affect those undertaking legitimate business, such as journalists.
In the third part of the Bill additional powers are needed for sanitation and drainage because of the type and density of buildings in the square mile and the problems caused by the immense daytime population. These proposals are supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and many others who must undertake certain works. The rest, as I have said, is a miscellaneous collection of worthy items which I could explain, if necessary.
I do not know what to explain because, most unusually, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has failed to respond to requests from either the City of London corporation or its parliamentary agents to say what is worrying him. That gave them no opportunity to try to assist him with any problem that he has. Equally, I would like to have assisted him but, not knowing what he wants to say, I have had to confine myself to the major items in the Bill.
I will, if I may, ask the leave of the House if need be to respond at the end to any matters that are raised, but I hope that the House will give this Bill its Third Reading.

Mr. Tony Banks: I must tell the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that I tabled a blocking motion on the Bill to secure a short debate. I fully understand and appreciate that it would have been more appropriate for that to have been done on Second Reading, but for a variety of reasons it was not. I had an opportunity of getting a short debate on Third Reading and I am most surprised, indeed gratified, to see such a large attendance for a Bill that I should have thought would have gone through fairly quickly. I do not intend to detain the House long, but there may be some points which Conservative Members wish to make.
The Bill has not been debated on the Floor of the House. It was not opposed on Second Reading, but was passed as unopposed private business. While I realise that the Chairman and hon. Members on the Committee of the


unopposed Bill will have scrutinised it, there is no substitute for a good free-ranging debate on the Floor. I appreciate that I cannot have a truly free-ranging debate today because we are now on Third Reading, so I shall stay close to the provisions of the Bill.
No Bill involving the City of London should pass easily through the House. The title of the Bill, City of London (Various Powers) Bill, reflects the great range of powers, abilities and responsibilities that the City of London retains. As all hon. Members know, the City of London remains a highly controversial body in local government terms. It is amazing that it has managed to survive every local government reorganisation this century. I wish that that could be said of the late Greater London council, of which I had the great honour to be chairman. Perhaps we could learn from the City how to survive against the odds.
The Herbert Commission report of 1957–60, which led to the London Government Act 1963, states:
If we were to be strictly logical we should recommend the amalgamation of the City and Westminster. But logic has its limits and the City lies outside them.
One understands that the City can defy logic, but from the Bill it is clear that it not only defies logic but has responsibilities which lie well outside its geographical boundaries. The Bill demonstrates that in marked respects.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that the overwhelming part of the Bill is to be welcomed, so it would not be opposed this evening. Certainly the amendments in respect of Billingsgate are welcome and, as I know, were the result of lengthy discussions with the Billingsgate traders and the TGWU. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) who played a significant part in initiating those discussions and reaching an agreed solution for amendments to be tabled in another place.
Similarly, Clauses 5 to 13 are undoubtedly urgently needed to provide for the continuation of that part of the Middlesex market which is in the City. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who interested himself greatly in those clauses.
I have reservations about three clauses in particular, the first of which is clause 19. As hon. Members will see, the clause would allow the City to make byelaws under the Animal Health Act 1981 in respect of the animal quarantine station at Heathrow airport without the approval of the Minister. We should not agree to that extension of powers, especially as it does not involve ministerial agreement. The Act is enforced by the corporation and one may say that the City is, in effect, a strategic authority in that respect for 14 London boroughs.
The London Government Act 1963 made the Corporation of London responsible for the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, which related to imported animals throughout the whole of Greater London, including Heathrow airport. Following an outbreak of rabies in 1969 the legislation on the importation of animals was strengthened and under the terms of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order animals can be landed only at ports with an approved holding facility. Heathrow is by far the busiest port in the United Kingdom for animal movements and, as a consequence, the corporation decided to build the animal quarantine station, which was opened in 1977. It is the

most sophisticated portal animal station in the world and is concerned with preventing disease entering the United Kingdom and safeguarding animal welfare.
More than 500,000 animals and birds pass through the station each year. The House will wish to be associated with a big "Thank you" to the staff at Heathrow airport who do such an excellent job in protecting our livestock from the importation of animal diseases, especially rabies. I should like to be on record as having thanked the staff for the work that they do.
However, that function should be carried out by a strategic regional authority and perhaps the GLC should have been responsible for it. That leads me to an important point. When the GLC was being broken up Ministers said that it was being broken up so as to relate services much more closely to the communities for which the services were afforded. It was difficult to do that for animal health and it was certainly difficult to do so for transport, the Thames barrier, the fire service and road traffic management. Therefore, the services were transferred either to Government Departments or to indirectly elected boards.
If the Government were being absolutely consistent in their local government changes in London, they should have placed the quarantine section at Heathrow under the responsibility of a Government Department. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have been the most appropriate. Clause 19 demonstrates, interestingly, the inconsistency of the Government's proposals for the structure of local government and its functions in London. Why should the City of London be responsible for activities at Heathrow airport which is on the other side of the Greater London area? That is why I cannot agree to clause 19, and, if the hon. Gentleman is given an opportunity to reply, perhaps he will explain precisely why that clause is required.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I question whether the hon. Gentleman is being logical about the quarantine station at Heathrow airport. Heathrow is the greatest international airport in the world and it is our national airport. If we are to be logical, the Government should take responsibility for that and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman said that. The City of London is contributing nationally £400 million a year or more through rates distribution and is responsible for earning more than £7,000 million a year in trade, so surely it is a question

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying that in practice it is perfectly consistent that the quarantine station at Heathrow airport should continue to be managed by the City of London.

Mr. Banks: Perhaps now the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) will appreciate the difficulties that I have in speaking on this Bill and staying carefully within the confines of its clauses. I would dearly love to enter into a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the role and function of the City of London in respect of the Greater London area, local government structure, its contribution to the wealth of the nation and so on. However, I would be caught out by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in much the same way as the hon. Gentleman. On a more suitable occasion we should get to grips with these problems.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us exactly what body he proposes should take over this facility at Heathrow given that, on his admission, it has worked perfectly well over the years and has involved no cost to central Government.

Mr. Banks: I said and repeat that it has worked admirably but the same could be said of the London fire brigade, the Thames barrier or London Regional Transport. Yet all those services were taken away from the Greater London council. Those functions were taken away, according to Government argument, to rationalise local government structure. If we apply that same, so-called logic to local government structures, why is the City of London—I do not deny it does a good job—still in charge of something that is not only outside its boundaries but unrelated to anything that it does?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman thought that the Government were wrong before, he must therefore think that they are right now.

Mr. Banks: One can be consistent as to whether one is right or wrong. I am not accepting the political arguments advanced for dismantling the Greater London council, but I can see the logic in that argument and all I am saying is that it should be extended to the City of London's functions. One is involved at two levels—one is trying to find logical structures and one is also influenced by political feelings.
My feelings towards the City of London are biased. I am totally opposed to its continued existence because it is an anachronistic institution which should have been abolished many years ago. I could continue but there will be an opportunity—not tonight—to pursue that strand of the argument to a greater degree.
I shall try to move with haste as I do not wish to detain the House. Clause 22 of the Bill seeks to amend the Epping Forest Act 1878. I wish to declare an interest straight away. I live in the district of London that is known as Forest Gate. It is on the edge of Epping Forest and Forest Gate is in my constituency of Newham, North-West. Epping forest covers some 6,000 acres. Those hon. Members who have not had the great pleasure of exploring the forest will not be aware that it is situated in the east of London.
I immediately appreciate and indeed approve of the 19th century reasons for the City of London securing the forest, but in view of the Local Government Act 1985 it would be consistent with that Act if the forest were run by a joint committee of the boroughts and districts in which it lies.
The clause—I realise that I must talk about that—relates to the register of commoners. The register was for those who were eligible to vote for the verderers section 30 of the Epping Forest Act 1878. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has many family links with the history of Epping forest and perhaps if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he can find an interesting way to tell us about it.
The verderers sit on the City's Epping forest committee. Paragraph 5 of the fourth schedule of the 1878 Act says:
where a commoner is under age or of unsound mind or a married woman, his or her guardian, committee or husband shall be entitled to be on the register in his or her place.
I find it intriguing since it is linking those of an unsound mind with married women. It goes to show the great depth

of sexism that existed in Victorian Britain. Obviously, when a woman married she became nothing more than the chattle of her husband. Clearly this must be changed and that is what the proposed clause seeks to do.
In all honesty I must report to the House that when I got up at 5 o'clock on Tuesday morning to get to the House for a ten-minute Bill, my wife said that she must have been mad to marry me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As a matter of fact, I could not think of anything to say at 5 am except that, if she thought that, she would have been ruled out on two counts from being included in the list of commoners for Epping forest. My wife was not impressed by the argument. However, I told her that when this Bill goes through the House married women would be allowed to be included on the register of commoners——

Mr. Jack Straw: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can tell us whether he met with success in his ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Banks: Yes, indeed. I was successful. Who else would get up at 5 o'clock in the morning? The Bill will be on the subject of fixed Parliaments for a five-year period. I include that as an advertisement if hon. Members wish to support me on 4 February.
In clause 22 the City is seeking to rectify this peculiarly sexist image but it has not done so yet and this is something about which I wish to ask the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate.
This bit of Victorian nonsense will not be removed until 1991 because the appointed day means 1 September 1991. I assume that is the next date for voting verderers on to the committee because the last election for verderers of Epping forest was a year ago. I would like to know what happens if a verderer decides to take the equivalent of the Chiltern Hundreds or if a verderer was trampled by one of the herds of grazing cattle. That in itself is a problem. Many households in the area of Newham, North-East have had cattle wander in from Wanstead flats, which are part of Epping forest and start munching up the gladioli and other herbaceous borders that are common in the area.
Obviously there is always a danger from stray cattle. Indeed, people in the area like to see this bit of rural England coming down their front paths. I suggested that the grazing rights should be stopped in Epping forest, but I encountered a fairly resilient degree of public opinion expressing the contrary view. Being a good democrat, I decided that the cattle should be left to adorn the constituency of my next-door neighbour the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton).
Qualification for voting for the verderers is still based on owning or occupying half an acre of unbuilt land. This means a property qualification is still involved in a partially democratic process of the City. Of course, the City has maintained practices that have long been abolished in other boroughs and in local government. For example, it still has a business vote and it still has aldermen—a practice that has long since disappeared elsewhere. But the City is always able to defy logic and the reorganisation of local government. Clause 22 again demonstrates that. However, as it goes, I must support it. Nevertheless, it certainly does not go far or fast enough.

Mr. Hanley: Does the hon. Gentleman feel any gratitude towards the City in that in 1985–86 it cost the City £1·5 million to maintain Epping forest? That is to the


benefit of all those who use that excellent area, but it costs local ratepayers absolutely nothing and is all at the expense of the City.

Mr. Banks: I am for ever grateful to the City for its contribution to the ratepayers of Newham, Waltham Forest or, indeed, Epping urban district council. They benefit, but I am talking about logical local government structures and about relating services to the local authority in which they are provided. I am just being logical, and it seems to me that there can be no logic in the City running Epping forest, Wanstead flats, Chingford golf course, West Ham park, Burnham beeches—the one that Hammer Horrors always used—the Kent and Surrey commons or Highgate woods. I quickly slipped those into my speech to demonstrate that we are not just talking about Epping forest. The City has acres of green land throughout the whole of the Greater London area. No doubt all those who use those recreational areas are grateful to the City, but the question is whether it is logical. It is logical to be grateful, but is it logical for the City to run them still?
Clause 24 relates to the Central London Railway Act 1892. I have secured a copy of that Act. Section 28(5) refers to Mansion house station and says:
Except as regards any entrances facing the Royal Exchange the Commissioners or the Commissioner of the City police shall have powers to close all public entrances to the station or subways at such times and for such purposes as they may deem necessary.
I do not understand why the entrances facing the Royal Exchange could not be closed, unless they had to stay open for people dashing out in order to get out of Czarist bonds and into other stocks.

Mr. Hanley: I am sorry to intervene so often in the hon. Gentleman's speech but perhaps it will help to bring his comments to a close. I believe that that entrance had to remain open because there was a public convenience there, to which the public needed ready access. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that as something provided by the City for people from all parts of the country who happen to be visiting the City.

Mr. Banks: I would always defer to the hon. Gentleman when it comes to a knowledge of public conveniences around London. Indeed, I am very grateful for that piece of information. In many ways it demonstrates how useful this sort of debate can be, because one can, at times, exchange incredibly useful information.
Why does clause 24 seek to give similar powers to the corporation and to the Commissioner of Police in respect of the entrances to Bank underground station for whatever purposes "they may deem necessary"? Enormous powers are being given to the City corporation. Why should the City corporation be granted those additional powers by the House? I should certainly like to oppose the clause.
Clause 2(1) talks about the Commissioner of Police for the City. That is another anachronism. The City has its own police force, and that is unique to London. Ministers jump up and say that it is nonsense for London boroughs to want to become involved in the democratic accountability of the Metropolitan police, but they never refer back to the City, which has had responsibility for policing its own area for many years. This is another perfect example of how the City is always made the

exception to the rule when it comes to democratic structures, democratic processes or London local government.
I heard what the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) said, and I do not wish to detain the House further. I was, of course, thinking of calling a Division on Third Reading, but clearly we are not particularly well equipped for that. All those who promised me their attendance have clearly failed, and so on this occasion I shall not push the debate to a vote. Nevertheless, the Bill exemplifies the City's illogical position in respect of its powers and responsibilities within the structure of local government. It is an institution long overdue for change, and that will be the task of the next Labour Government.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I always enjoy listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), and it is a pleasure to support the Bill's Third Reading which he so agreeably moved.
If the Labour party has its way, there will not he many more such private Bills. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for example, is eager to destroy the ancient traditions and institutions of the City of London. But, although they offend his logic, they are cherished at home and honoured abroad. Indeed, I think that Tory Members would be inclined to say blow logic if illogicality gives efficiency and satisfaction. It is apparent from the hon. Gentleman's speech that the Opposition's hostility to the City arises in part from their fury that the GLC is no more, and is so little lamented.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) intervened. I have no interests in the City, but I salute the City corporation in their capacity of Conservators of Epping Forest, whose northern parishes I have the honour to represent. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West had something to say about clause 22. He is un-English in his addiction to logic, and he spoke of the City corporation as a strategic authority. He mentioned, in particular, the animal quarantine arrangements and animal welfare provision at Heathrow airport. Hon. Members will want to echo what he said in generous praise of the staff there. But the difference between him and me, and no doubt my hon. Friends, is that when the public obtain a service at no cost to the taxpayer, we are glad and he is sorry.
My experience of the City's extra territorial responsibilities in connection with Epping forest has been a happy one. Indeed, when the GLC was being abolished, I proposed that the Lord Mayor and the corporation of London should thereafter not only serve as a unifying symbol and focus of loyalty for Londoners, but also provide a framework for those common services that fell outside the responsibility of the London borough councils. The Friends of Hainault Forest, under my presidency, also proposed that the City corporation should take on Hainault forest, which once formed part of the great forest of Waltham or forest of Essex, or, as we usually call it now, Epping forest. Unfortunately, we did not succeed.
The purpose of clause 22 of the Bill was explained by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. Clearly, the schedule in the Epping Forest Act 1878, which he quoted, is offensive. Any commoner in the forest parishes may he registered as an elector for the choice every seven years of


the four verderers. Verderers provide local representation in the management of the forest, which is run extra-territorially by the City corporation through the Epping Forest Committee.
Contrary to the belief of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who wanted to bring in a greater measure of local control of Epping forest, the fact that, for more than a century, it has been under a remote authority has preserved it from the increasingly powerful pressures of local builders and developers.
A certain member of the public noticed that the offensive terms of the schedule appeared in the literature that was circulated for the election of verderers. As a result of that, the Equal Opportunities Commission wrote that, in its view, the provision was:
harmful to the status of married women and certainly against the spirit of the anti-discrimination legislation.
As far as I can determine, there is no example of an occasion on which a husband decided to exercise the right to register himself in place of his wife, but the right is offensive. I rather like anachonisms, but I do not like this one.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not right the wrong because of a provision which states that the Act does not render unlawful
any act done by a person if it were necessary for him to do it in order to comply with a requirement of an Act of Parliament passed before this Act.
Clearly, the Epping Forest Act 1878 was passed before the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The House will welcome the steps being taken by the City of London Corporation to remove this obsolete and offensive disfranchisement.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I wish to make three comments about clauses 7, 19 and 22 of the Bill. Even if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) voted against clause 19, he would not in any way solve the problem. Other legislation would be needed. As you correctly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that debate will have to wait for another day. I echo the point that the quarantine service at Heathrow is a splendid service provided free by the City of London for the benefit of the nation.
I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the criticisms implicitly made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about the sexism contained in clause 22, the reasons for which have been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). My surname, Chapman, twice contravenes the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I should like to see that measure reorganised to accommodate at least my political embarrassment on that score.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) made an excellent point about the trading licences in Middlesex street. Although we have abolished the county, thank goodness we are not abolishing the street which is sometimes colloquially known as Petticoat lane. Again, my surname plays a modest part in clause 7. I admit that, according to Chaucer, a chapman is a pedlar of cheap, down-market goods.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is a good description of the Government.

Mr. Chapman: Perhaps there is hope for me in it, then. I should add that I have no interest in Middlesex street, or that part of it which is in the City of London, but it is right to pass clause 7 because it honours a commitment that was given in good faith. It is no fault of the City corporation that it would act outside the law if it were to grant these licences to these people and their successors.
I welcome clause 7 and the Bill as a whole. Although this matter is for another day and another debate, Londoners in particular and the country in general should acknowledge and put on record the great contribution that the City makes to our life and to the revenue of the Government and local authorities. I pay tribute to the City corporation and wish it well in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): It may be helpful if, at this point, I intervene to give a brief explanation of the Government's view on the Bill. Before I do so, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for bringing the Bill before the House. It is apparent that the narrow scope of the Bill causes a sense of frustration amongst hon. Members, especially when the short title looks so promising for a continuation about the great debate about London government. I must admit to sharing the sense of frustration at not being able to debate the wider issues tonight.
It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) in the Chamber. I served as his PPS for a happy period until last September. I am delighted to see him here, and I am sure that he is disappointed at not being able, by reason of the office that he holds, to participate in this interesting debate.
It is traditional that, on private Bills, the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the corporation. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified. My Department and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are still negotiating with the promoters on some outstanding points, and I hope that these will be cleared up satisfactorily.
The Bill was unopposed in Committee in March last year. In the Government's view, none of the matters raised tonight is of sufficient importance to warrant further delay to the progress of this Bill, and I recommend that it be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I echo the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and others in supporting the Bill and in refuting an argument raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The hon. Gentleman said that it was inconsistent Government policy to allow the City of London to look after the quarantine station at Heathrow, as it has done for many years and with great success, and also to allow it to retain its rights, powers and generosity over Epping forest and so many other areas within Greater London. It is not inconsistent to allow an authority to continue to run these matters if it does so with due care, proper frugality, and proper economy and provides an excellent service to all


who use its facilities. It is not against Governments policy to allow a fully democratic authority that has been nothing but of benefit to the nation. It also is not against Government policy to allow a Bill that has involved consultation in the widest sense. The Bill relates to an organisation in the City of London that has the acquiescence of all the people who have been interested in its various parts.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he can claim that the City of London is truly democratic when, for example, the aldermen of the City are elected for life and have a business vote?

Mr. Hanley: It is not undemocratic to allow a vote to people who have a direct interest in the area concerned. If 99 per cent. of those who occupy the City happen to be those who run businesses in that area, surely it is democratic to give those people a vote. It would be undemocratic to remove the vote in other areas, but that debate is outside the ambit of this evening's discussion. Therefore, I shall not be drawn on that.
It is wholly within the Government's policy to allow a successful organisation, such as the City of London Corporation, the powers which show how it is successfully dealing with changing situations, for example, the way in which it is dealing with Middlesex street market, Billingsgate market, the drainage and sanitation problems, and the large population within the square mile where the type and density of buildings are always changing and the buildings are getting ever higher. The powers would also allow the corporation to show the way in which it deals with the problems faced by tourists in London, for example, the problems that have occurred because of the use of animals by photographic traders, and the way in which it deals with the City walkways.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will remember the way in which the corporation helped to fund the Museum of London. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great confidence in that musem because he has deposited some valuable items there, to be exhibited to the general public for all time.
@@
I know that all hon. Members are grateful to the corporation for the work that it has done for many hundreds of years—indeed, for a considerably longer time than the Greater London council existed.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Hanley: If the Greater London council had carried on its business with the responsibility that is shown by the City of London Corporation, it might still be in existence.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As I listened to the pertinent and felicitous intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I could not help but think, would that the Government's neutrality was always as benevolent as tonight, and would that ministerial interventions were always as brief and to the point.
I shall he brief, but I should like to do something that no hon. Member has yet been charitable enough to do, and that is to thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for giving us the opportunity to put on record the value of the City of London. The hon. Gentleman has performed a signal service and we are all much in his debt. As a freeman of the City and a resident of it, I believe that it functions with great distinction.

Mr. John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is also a voter within the City.

Mr. Cormack: If the House ever embraced the doctrine that logic should be our master in all things, we should be in for real trouble. Logic is a good enough servant, but it is a bad master. I am happy that there should be certain illogicalities. I recognise that there are some in the City of London, but, despite that, it does work. It is a proud flagship for Britain. Long may it sail into the future, and long may we support it.

Mr. Jack Straw: Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), my hon. Friends and I are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for affording us the opportunity of this short debate on certain aspects of the operation of the City of London.
As you have made clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not the occasion for a debate on the constitution of the City. However, I should like to add that the Labour party is about to state, in its discussion document on the future policies of a Labour Government, that it would review the position of the City of London, because the City's present constitution reflects the time when the City was extremely populous. Many people—not just those in the Labour party—take the view that the constitution should be modernised.
It is also worth reflecting upon the fact that on many occasions in previous centuries the City of London corporation, the common council, adopted a radical stance and was opposed to the Government. For example, in the 18th century arguments on whether the then hon. Member for Middlesex should be allowed to take his seat——

Sir J. Biggs-Davison: And the 17th century——

Mr. Straw: Indeed, there were similar arguments in the 17th century.
Our concern is not in any way to throw away the goods because much that the City of London does is good, but to bring the City and its constitution up to date.
I should also like to comment on the percentage over grant-related expenditure assessment, and expenditure increases. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no debate on the problems faced by good Labour authorities is ever complete without a reference to the fact that under the curious system of block grant—rate support grant—that the Government have established, the authority that shows the greatest increase in expenditure in the past seven years is the City of London with an increase of about 300 per cent. The authority that shows the greatest percentage increase over its grant-related expenditure assessment is also the City of London. However, somehow the City always manages to escape rate-capping, while authorities with far more moderate increases in expenditure, for example, Islington and Newham, are somehow caught.
I shall turn now to the merits of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West recited, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) were heavily involved in those parts of the Bill that relate to Billingsgate market and those that relate to the Middlesex street market. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are


anxious that those provisions, as they now appear in the Bill, become law as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to both of them for their work in ensuring that those matters are included in the Bill as it is cast at present.
The other part of the Bill that has aroused discussion relates to the verderers of Epping forest. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West spoke about my family connections with Epping forest. I shall not go into all those connections, except to say that in the previous century my family were among the villagers in the then agricultural village of Loughton who, along with many other people, fought the lords of the manor to prevent the enclosure of the forest.

Sir J. Biggs-Davison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Straw: I am glad that I am joined in that by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). The first consequence of that great battle, in which much was at stake because the villagers had the rights of lopping and grazing in the forest, was the founding of the Commons Preservation Society—not the House of Commons but green commons. The society weighed in in support of the villagers. Legal actions were brought against the lords of the manor and, some time later, the City of London agreed to run the great forest for the benefit of the people of Essex and London. That was confirmed when Queen Victoria came to open the new forest.
As I have said, I disagree to some extent with the way in which the City is run. I speak as somebody who was brought up almost in the forest. The concrete playground of my primary school was exactly opposite the forest. My family still live there, and I cannot say that I can recollect any serious arguments about the way in which the City have administered the forest.
The Bill is a modest amendment and it is important within the context of equal opportunities legislation. I hope that it is agreed to.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am not sure if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is related to Herne the Hunter in that he played in the forest. I seem to remember that Herne came to a rather strange end. The hon. Member implied that in the year 2005 the future of the City may be reviewed. All I would say is that the future of the City was reviewed not long ago. It was reviewed following the Royal Commission that produced the London Government Act 1963. However, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that his comments on GREA were an echo of a parliamentary question tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The hon. Member for Copeland was shot down in flames by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and we heard no more from him on that subject.
We have had a strange evening. We have all been debating one subject while behind that facade was another much greater and more contentious issue champing at the bit. However, with your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not allowed to come under starter's orders. I look forward to that occasion. On a previous occasion I have defended the City against the philistines on the Opposition Benches who wish to abolish it. I am sure that that time will come

again. I doubt if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I have ever had such an agreeable confrontation. Perhaps that should happen more often.
I found it difficult to help my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) to remain within the terms of the Equal Opportunities Commission except perhaps to address him as, "Person, person" because I cannot think of a colloquialism for, "chap". However, it may come to me.
The immortal words on neutrality read out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State struck a familiar note. I have read such words on many occasions with great unhappiness. I am sure that perhaps on this occasion my hon. Friend would have liked to contribute more to the discussion.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for his contribution and for helping me to obtain the information that I needed to answer some of the questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) chided me for not having praised the City. I did that deliberately because I thought that if I praised it too much it might have a counter-effect on other hon. Members which, in turn, might have made the debate more contentious. I yield to no one in my admiration for the City and I am delighted that my hon. Friend put that fact on record.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made clear his reason for the debate. He said it was because of his hatred—I do not think that I use the wrong word—for the City of London as a local authority. I do not approve, but I understand. However, I must remind him that it has survived by virtue of various Royal Commissions. He gave us the pleasure of quoting from paragraph 935 of the Herbert report. It is sad that he did not quote the paragraph before. For the sake of completeness, because I know that he is a rounded person and likes to be complete, I shall quote paragraph 934. It states:
It will be seen that we propose that the City of London should remain as a separate entity within its present limits. This is an anomaly but we recommend that this anomaly should continue and we make this recommendation as a definite, not a provisional recommendation.
I shall now deal with the quarantine and animal health facilities at London airport. The question of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was fair but wholly illogical. The City was doing that work long before the GLC was established. Therefore, the argument that the function should have gone to central Government or elsewhere when the GLC was rightfully abolished does not hold water. It was carefully considered and it was decided that the GLC should not undertake that function. If it was not undertaken by the City, the cost would fall on central Government or the London boroughs. At present it is paid for by the City. There is no Government grant or subsidy. If the hon. Gentleman would like to fight a campaign to charge the London boroughs for carrying out that service and make them pay for it, I do not think that he would be popular with the London Labour party. He certainly would not be popular with the London Labour boroughs. I suggest that he should gulp hard and let sleeping dogs lie.
Under the present legislation byelaws have been placing a difficult and heavy administrative burden upon the Department of the Environment. It recognises it as such


and accordingly has decided that it is not necessary for the Department to confirm any byelaws. Therefore, the change has the consent of the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) gave a long explanation of clause 22 to the House. Therefore, I can be brief, because he has given the salient facts. However, as the House knows, the City saved Epping forest from enclosure in the 19th century. It now maintains it at no expense to the ratepayer or taxpayer. Does the hon. Member for Newham, North-West wish those costs to fall upon the London ratepayers? If he does, which is the logic of his proposal, I shall ensure that that fact is known and added to the other costs that he wants to put on them. I do not think that he will be too popular with his colleagues. Like his predecessor—I say this pleasantly—he may have difficulty in reselection.

Mr. Tony Banks: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will have no difficulty in reselection. In fact, I have already been reselected. However, the national executive of the Labour party has not approved the reselection because of the involvement of black sections. We shall pass quickly over that. I am sure that I will be imposed on the constituency in the end. I would expect to see the charge for Epping forest fall on the ratepayers of Greater London. However, it would be done on a reorganisation that would free all the City cash and assets for use by Greater London as well. Therefore, we would not be depriving ourselves of City cash but using it more generously around the rest of London.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: If the hon. Gentleman deprived the City of its cash, that would be a once-and-for-all operation. The annual revenue costs would be rather like

the goose that laid the golden egg. If one whips the goose away, the golden eggs do not last much longer. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a little illogical.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Presumably, if the city corporation was deprived of the management of Epping forest it might be that the ratepayers of Epping Forest would be asked to contribute. They certainly would not wish to do so.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Had the good burgesses of Newham, North-West known that the hon. Gentleman wanted to put the extra burdens upon them, he might not have been reselected. However, we will leave that point.
The hon. Member for Newham North-West raised a helpful point on the 1991 issue. I shall see that it is looked at. The problems that might come up if there were a vacancy need to be looked at. It will not come into effect until 1991 because, as he rightly summised, there will not be a general election of verderers until then. They have a fixed term. However, the hon. Gentleman is clearly an advocate of fixed terms. There are lengthy needs of publication. When one places notices on trees they may be eaten by wandering cattle, butted by deer and may have to be replaced. Therefore, it takes a certain amount of time.
The Bill is useful and, as has been said, the debate has been interesting and pleasant. It has fully justified the existence of the City because it has proved how the City can do a large number of things at no cost to the ratepayer or taxpayer and that it can provide a remarkably good service. I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Double Taxation Relief

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 1986 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th December.
I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss motion No. 3:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order 1986 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th December.
The House might find it helpful if I begin by saying a few words about double taxation conventions generally before turning to the orders themselves.
The United Kingdom has an extensive network of bilateral double taxation treaties. Their purpose is to give relief from the burden of international double taxation which would otherwise result when income arises in one country, flows to another and is taxed in both.
Broadly speaking, and depending upon the nature of the income and laws of the country concerned, relief is usually provided by the country in which the income arises, reducing its rates of tax, and in some cases giving up the right to tax altogether. In addition, where income remains taxable in both countries, the country in which the recipient is resident will give credit against its tax on that income in respect of the tax paid in the country of source, or will give relief from double taxation by exempting that income from tax in the country of residence.
Double taxation agreements, amongst other things, lay down rules for the taxing of income flowing between the two treaty partners. They also provide rules for taxing a resident of one country who carries on business in the other country.
Another important function of a double taxation agreement is to fix maximum rates of tax that may be applied by the country of source to certain categories of income—for example, dividends, interest and royalties. These rates will remain unaffected by any subsequent increase in domestic tax rates in either country. Double taxation conventions help to create a stable fiscal framework within which international trade and investment can develop to the mutual benefit of the two countries.
We already have comprehensive double taxation conventions with France and Mauritius. The protocol with France adds an entirely new article to the existing provisions, setting out clearly defined rules for taxing certain offshore activities. The protocol with Mauritius amends the existing convention by substituting a new article covering the taxation treatment of dividends. I shall deal with the main provisions of each order in turn, starting with France. This order concerns the taxation of income from offshore oil and gas activities on the continental shelf.
It is generally recognised by countries around the North sea and English channel, and many others, that special rules are needed to take account of the special circumstances arising in offshore exploration and development. France, although having little offshore oil of its own to date, agreed that the terms of the existing convention needed to be modified to take these special considerations into account.
This offshore protocol is not to be confused with another protocol which deals, inter alia, with certain tax matters relating to the Channel fixed link. The terms of this protocol have been agreed in principle, but the final text is still being discussed. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced these arrangements on 10 July 1986 in reply to a parliamentary question.
The protocol before us follows the pattern of similar amendments made in recent years to conventions with Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States. Basically, the general rule is that an enterprise of one country carrying on activities relating to mineral exploration or exploitation on the continental shelf of the other country may be taxed in that other country on profits from those activities. Any double taxation is to be relieved by credit in the country of residence. The taxation of profits from the transportation of supplies or personnel, however, follows the normal rules which apply to the taxation of international shipping. These provide for taxation solely in the country of residence of the operator.
This protocol is not essential for the taxation of profits from offshore oil and gas production, which are taxable in the producing country under the normal rules. The reason it is needed is to overcome uncertainties surrounding the tax treatment of the various exploration, service and support activities of contractors engaged by the oil companies, particularly where these activities take place on board, or from, mobile vessels. The provisions of the present convention were not devised with these activities in mind.
The protocol will have effect in the calendar year following that in which it comes into force. It cannot come into force until both countries have notified one another of the completion of their legislative procedures.
I now come to the order with Mauritius. This contains the text of a protocol which amends the existing dividends article in the convention. The 1984 Mauritian Finance Act introduced substantial changes to the taxation of company profits and dividends. An unintended consequence was that the provisions of the dividend article of the existing convention effectively prevented Mauritius from charging tax on dividends flowing to the United Kingdom. Mauritius requested an amendment to the existing convention so that their taxing rights could be restored.
In the new dividend article, Mauritius has agreed to rates of tax which are not excessive and which compare favourably with those contained in broadly similar agreements that the United Kingdom has with other developing countries. The rate for direct investors is 10 per cent—that is, where the beneficial owner of the dividends is a company controlling at least 10 per cent. of the voting power of the company paying the dividends. In all other cases, Mauritius will be able to apply a rate not exceeding 15 per cent. of the gross amount of the dividends.
The protocol will have effect in relation to dividends paid on or after 1 July 1986. In practice, this means that dividends paid to a United Kingdom resident would be taxed in Mauritius only from the year of assessment beginning 1 July 1987. Mauritius has forgone its taxing rights on dividends flowing to the United Kingdom until the protocol takes effect.
I commend these two draft orders to the House on the basis that they strike a fair balance between the interests of the various countries concerned and the United


Kingdom, and, indeed, between the interests of the residents of those countries and those of the United Kingdom. I shall be happy to deal, so far as I can, with any points on them which may concern hon. Members. Subject to that, I hope that the House will approve the two orders.

Mr. Tony Blair: The purpose of the double taxation conventions is to ensure, first, that there is no double taxation of an unfair nature, and, secondly, that there are no opportunities for fiscal evasion.
I shall deal first with the order in relation to France. The order inserts effectively a new article in the convention of 1968. I can be brief in dealing with it, but there are one or two minor points that I should like cleared up.
The new article 29A does a number of different things. First, in paragraph 1, it ensures that where an enterprise of one country conducts offshore activities under the jurisdiction of the other, it is deemed to be carrying on business through a permanent establishment in that other country. The effect would be that if a United Kingdom company were conducting offshore oil exploration in French territory it would be liable for tax in France.
I want to make sure that the effect of the new article 29A, taken in conjunction with the articles that already exist, will ensure that there is double taxation relief for the liability to French tax of that United Kingdom company. The effect of article 29A will be that the United Kingdom company exploring on French territory is treated as liable for tax in France. Presumably, under the other articles of the convention, relief is given for any double taxation element.
Secondly, paragraph 3 of the new article 29A provides that independent professional activities carried on in connection with the oil or gas exploration or exploitation in the other contracting state is deemed to be performed from a fixed base in the country where those activities are carried on. In other words, it is similar to offshore activities in connection wth oil or gas exploration. I assume that, for example, canteen facilities on a French oil rig provided by a United Kingdom company would be liable for French tax.
As the Minister said, the exception arises in circumstances where profits are derived from the transportation of supplies or personnel. That follows the normal rules of international shipping and they are taxable only in the state in which the taxpayer is resident. I assume that a United Kingdom helicopter company transporting personnel to a French oil rig is still taxed as a United Kingdom resident. I simply wanted confirmation that I have understood the effect of the order relating to France.
The protocol in the order relating to Mauritius amends the 1987 convention with Mauritius on double taxation. As the Minister said, it follows changes in the law of Mauritius on the taxation and distribution of company profits and distributions. Therefore, in principle, since it involves changes in the law, or is consequent upon changes in the law of Mauritius, I assume that, in principle, the treatment of dividends flowing from a United Kingdom company to a Mauritius resident or shareholder is unchanged.
As I understand it, at present, dividends coming from a United Kingdom company to a Mauritius resident or shareholder will be taxed in Mauritius. The Mauritius resident is entitled to a tax credit in the United Kingdom.
But where he is entitled to a tax credit, he is also taxable in the United Kingdom on the aggregate of the dividends and the tax credit, but at a rate not exceeding 15 per cent.
I notice one slight change. To be entitled to a tax credit in the United Kingdom, the Mauritius resident under the new article 10 must, in order to be entitled to a tax credit in the United Kingdom, be
the beneficial owner of the dividend",
whereas previously I think that the words were
subject to tax in Mauritius".
I assume that that is merely a technical change and has no significance.
The main item in the order relating to Mauritius is the change in the treatment of dividends coming to United Kingdom residents from a Mauritius company. I have one point that I should like the Minister to elucidate because I have not entirely understood the effect of the order. As I understand it, previously, under the old paragraph 4 of article 10, for which the order substitutes a new paragraph, where a United Kingdom shareholder received a dividend from a Mauritius company and corporation tax was charged in Mauritius, the dividend would be taxed in the United Kingdom, but there would be no tax on the dividend in Mauritius. What has happened now is that the United Kingdom shareholder who receives a dividend from a Mauritius company will be taxed in the United Kingdom, but also in Mauritius—up to 10 per cent., if the United Kingdom shareholder is a controlling company of more than 10 per cent. of the voting power of the Mauritius company, or otherwise up to 15 per cent.
This is important in case there are any consequences to United Kingdom residents. I rather assumed that Mauritius might previously have applied a sort of classical system of taxation and dividends would be distributed on the after-tax profits of the Mauritian company, and had changed to some sort of imputation system so that dividends were distributed through the pre-tax profits, as with our advance corporation tax, and that that was why it was necessary to introduce an ability to tax dividends in the United Kingdom and in Mauritius. If I am wrong about that, perhaps I could be told.
In general terms, can the Minister tell us what the implication will be for United Kingdom residents? Has he any financial estimate of the order's implications? Will the United Kingdom's revenue be adversely affected? The same applies to the order relating to France. Can the Minister tell us in general terms what the revenue implications will be? Will they be adverse for the United Kingdom tax holder?
I am aware that these are complicated measures. I do not need to detain the House further, but since the orders are before us I thought it right to raise these queries.

Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, I shall be delighted to respond to the questions of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The hon. Gentleman asked about double taxation relief on the French order. I can give him a complete assurance that there will be no change in the relief available against United Kingdom tax on the same income under article 24 of the convention. Similarly, in the hon. Gentleman's example of a United Kingdom company transporting personnel to a French oil or gas rig, I can confirm that that would be taxable in the United Kingdom along the lines that he suggested.
On the Mauritian order, the hon. Gentleman made a correct assumption about the situation before 1984. The Mauritian element has come in because, as I said, of the changes that Mauritius made to its domestic tax law in 1984 when, inadvertently, it precluded itself from taxing dividends that were flowing to the United Kingdom.
Before the changes that were made in 1984, dividends were allowable as deductions in computing a company's chargeable profits, and were treated as taxable income in the hands of the shareholders—whether or not such persons were residents. Rates of Mauritian tax have varied, but at the time of the change a public company was taxed at a rate of 50 per cent. and a private company at a rate of 60 per cent. In addition, a surcharge of 10 per cent. of the tax payable was also imposed, making the effective rates 55 per cent. and 66 per cent. respectively. Individuals were taxed progressively, and in some years the maximum rate was as high as 80 per cent. The terms of the existing convention allowed Mauritius to apply its domestic rates without restriction. Since 1984, dividends have not been treated as allowable deductions. There is no provision for withholding tax when dividends are paid, and so dividends are taxed like any other income, but where a non-resident company derives dividends from a resident company, Mauritian tax is payable by the shareholding company at a rate of 35 per cent. Where a shareholder is an individual, tax is applied on a progressive scale, ranging from 5 per cent. to 35 per cent.
I do not want to go through an elaborate arithmetical calculation but, before the 1984 changes, a subsidiary of a United Kingdom company in Mauritius, which wished to remit profits entirely as a dividend, would have nil taxable profits in Mauritius. The Mauritius income in the United Kingdom was charged so that in total the dividend after Mauritius tax was 45 per cent. of the original profit of, say, 100. In the United Kingdom the foreign dividend of 100 was charged at 50 per cent., according to United Kingdom tax law in 1983.
There was a further overseas tax of 55, of which 5 was unrelieved because of the Mauritian tax of 55 per cent. Therefore, the United Kingdom tax payable was nil.

Under the post-1984 changes under the convention, as amended by this protocol, the subsidiary of the United Kingdom company in Mauritius will have a Mauritian income of 65, after the deduction of 35 of Mauritian tax. But there will then be a Mauritian tax at the treaty rate of 10 per cent. Therefore, there will be a further 6·5 per cent. of tax, producing a net income of 58·5 per cent.
In the United Kingdom the foreign dividend would be grossed up for underlying relief. If one assumes a United Kingdom tax of 35 per cent., the overseas tax on the dividend will be 6·5, as I described a moment ago, and the tax on the profits will be 35. Of the overseas tax, 5 was unrelieved because of the Mauritian tax of 55 that I have described. Whereas we previously had an unrelieved figure of 5 per cent., we now have an unrelieved figure of 6·5 per cent. Again, no United Kingdom tax will be payable. Those are complicated figures and I shall not take the House through what would have happened if we had not amended them. It will be clear to the House that the changes are not of great significance but they are helpful to Mauritius. The flow of finance between Mauritius and the United Kingdom is traditionally confidential, but we are not talking about large sums of money.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 1986 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th December.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order 1986 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th December.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING

Ordered,
That the provisions of pargraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)all apply to the draft Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955, as amended, as if they were a draft Statutory Instrument; and that the said draft Amendments be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Orders of the Day — Talbot Green, Mid Glamorgan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Brynmor John: I rarely take advantage of this procedure, but I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on an issue which has caused a great deal of local anxiety. It would be of assistance to the House if I explained the position of Talbot Green. It is situated at the mouth of the Ely valley and has been growing commercially and residentially. Many of its inhabitants travel to work to Bridgend in the west, to Pontypridd in the east, to Tonyrefail and the Rhondda in the north or, most likely, to Cardiff in the south. Because of the town's position at a junction, a large volume of through traffic uses the main roads.
The growth of the town as a residential and commercial centre is evidenced by the development there of the Newpark site. On this enclosed site has been placed a Tesco superstore and petrol filling station, a shopping precinct which is attached to the Tesco store with a precinct of smaller shops, and a CRS furniture superstore. These stores have their own car parks catering for about 500 to 600 cars with an average occupancy per day of about 400 to 500 cars. Houses have been built on the site, sheltered accommodation has been provided and there is a John Groom Association home which, as all Members will know, is a home for quite severely disabled people.
There is one access to the site from the A473 and one main egress on to the A4119. Elsewhere in the township of Talbot Green there are a large number of other stores and a bus station which carries passengers along the main routes of travel. It is quite clear that such a busy township will have a certain amount of traffic congestion anyway, and to that congestion has been added an open air market which by a typical error in the inspector's report is described as being at Pontyclun. That open air market operates on the south-west side of Talbot Green and in recent years has added considerably to the traffic congestion.
The market is in itself controversial, but what is beyond controversy is that it attracts customers in numbers which overwhelm its car parking facilities and the on-street car parking facilities in the immediate vicinity. On its own that market generates an extensive amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area.
To this already volatile situation has been added a proposal to establish a second market on the Newpark site about half a mile from the existing market. Very properly, the local authority rejected that proposal on planning grounds, but the appeal against the rejection was allowed by the Welsh Office inspector. To put it mildly, his decision caused consternation, anger and outrage. It seems to the people there to be explicable only as an abandonment by the Welsh Office of its duty to help secure a balanced community and it is seen as an abandonment of the residents.
I shall try to explain just how bad the Welsh Office decision was. The inquiry was defective both in the procedure followed for its convening and in the conclusions to be found in the report. The procedural defects were unfair to the public. People in the area immediately affected should have been given five days'

notice of the hearing, but no one that I have spoken to had that. A very few had two days' notice but the vast majority of people living on the site had no notice at all.
None of the residents of Green park, Maestrisant, Llys Illtyd, Oak road, Ash walk or Cherry Tree walk was informed. Therefore, they had no chance to put in written submissions, and when one or two of them discovered the existence of the inquiry and attended and asked to be allowed to give oral evidence, they received a dusty reply from the inspector. Having thus excluded almost all the residents likely to be directly affected, the inspector arrived at wrong conclusions. That is not a mere matter of opinion, because there were errors on the face of the report and subsequent events have shown other errors in findings.
The inspector was rightly concerned about traffic congestion and traffic flows. His theoretical calculations are impressive, but, as the late Aneurin Bevan said, why should we look in a crystal ball when we can read the book. If my constituents had been given the opportunity to give evidence, such academic calculations would have been unnecessary. If the inspector had heard from the lady who telephoned me the other Saturday to tell me that because of street parking associated with the existing market it had taken her half an hour to cover the one mile between her home and her shop in Pontyclun, he would have known that. If he had read the letter from another lady who now must allow 20 minutes extra for her journey to Tonyrefail on a Wednesday to get to work and is often late, he would have realised that and would know that, whatever the theoretical pattern of traffic, in practice traffic dislocation in this township is now very great.
I appreciate that the Minister may well respond to that by saying that it is not too bad because the inspector has taken care to prevent the two markets from opening on the same day. In paragraph 12 of his report the inspector rules out the new market opening on a Saturday because the present one is open on that day. He describes dual opening as unacceptable and grants to the new market the opening days of Wednesday and Thursday. What he did not know or knew but overlooked is that, though the existing Yemms market then opened only on a Saturday, it had the power, if it chose to use it, to open on another day of the week. Since the report appeared it has, surprise, surprise, chosen to open on a Wednesday, and that is the reason for the extra time that my constituent must now allow to get to work.
If the dislocation that I have described arises when one market opens on Wednesdays, it will also apply when the new market is open on Thursdays and will be double when, as is now permitted, the two markets are simultaneously open on Wednesdays. Can the House imagine the chaos, the misery and the frustration that will occur when both open air markets are decanting their customers on to the same roads on the same day and mostly at the same peak times?
A market or markets will now be held on three days of the week and life in Talbot Green will be significantly dislocated. The effect of the ignorance or the oversight of the inspector in this vital matter renders his calculations largely valueless. His report is thereby fatally flawed. In paragraph 12 the inspector says that the existing market is to provide additional car parking, as he describes it, "to ease traffic problems". For a variety of reasons, that has not proved to be the case since the hearing. Indeed, less car


parking is now available than when the inquiry was held. That is another point on which the inspector's report is wrong.
None of the parties to the inquiry could have foreseen another flaw. The appellant asserted, and it appeared to play a part in the inspector's decision, that the imminent construction of the Talbot Green bypass would halve traffic congestion in the village. Last week put paid to that assertion. The Welsh Office withdrew its grant of £8·5 million for the first year of construction of the new bypass. Also it asked whether it was necessary to build the bypass as the railway line was to be closed. Quite apart from the planning decision, that is a major blow to this area. It is a recipe for chaos. Once again, subsequent events have illustrated the unsoundness of the inspector's report.
The major argument is not about convenience but about danger to life and health. I was born in the town that I now represent. It has had an open air market since at least the 19th century. It is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. This is not the cry, therefore, of somebody who is unused to open air markets. I am thoroughly used to them. However, it cannot be denied that open air markets in villages result in people parking in the surrounding streets, often on both sides, even though car parking is provided.
The greater traffic flow into and out of the Newpark site for the new market means that the emergency services would be faced with a desperate problem if there were a fire on the site, or if somebody were taken seriously ill. Such incidents are even more likely where sheltered accommodation is provided. Indeed, incidents of that kind are highly likely at places like the John Groom home. There are far more emergencies to be dealt with, and the physical immobility of the residents means that they are vulnerable if there is a fire. Can it honestly be said that the inquiry took these factors into account? It contains no reference to the problem. It is a glaring omission in what I hope the Minister will agree is an unsatisfactory report.
Any planning authority, including the Welsh Office, must pay regard to shoppers' preferences. It has an equal duty to pay regard to the preferences of the residents. It must strike a balance between shops that open on six days a week and provide services as well as goods and those which operate on only one or two days a week and who can close at short notice. If the trading activities of the shops that open six days a week are weakened, the community is weakened. That is doubly the case when a market has a maximum life of only four years.
The inspector—an outsider and, because of procedural flaws, without knowledge of the views of local people—said that in his view the market would not weaken local traders. He could not have held that view for a moment if he had heard what local traders say. The existing market has hit trade hard on precisely the day when traders hope to do well. They will now be hard hit on two days when they hope to do well, but they will be particularly hard hit on Saturdays. Two markets would force some traders to close, while others would have to cut back.
Who would replace those traders? To whom could the local authority look for lost rating income? Who would serve the population on Mondays and Tuesdays when trade is as much a public as a commercial service? The decision to allow a second market, even for a limited

period, would impose an intolerable strain on the community. It is the worst of decisions. The local community has not been adequately represented. The decision was based on grounds that were either wrong at the time or falsified by subsequent developments.
In the case of opencast mining in his constituency the Secretary of State has shown that he will not allow mere commercial considerations to despoil an area. What is good enough for Pembrokeshire is good enough for Talbot Green. A fresh look at this question and at the protection that my constituents feel has been denied to them so far should now be undertaken by the Welsh Office.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): Individual local planning applications and the decisions made on them often give rise to concern on the part of interested parties, and I fully understand the wish of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) to seek to raise in the House tonight the subject of recent planning decisions on Talbot Green in Mid Glamorgan which are of concern to his constituents. It is perhaps best to start by explaining to the House the background to the planning appeal that is at the centre of the issues which the hon. Gentleman has raised in the course of his speech.
In December 1984 Excrest Ltd. applied to Taff Ely borough council, as local planning authority, for planning permission to use an area of land at Newpark, Talbot Green, Llantrisant for two days per week as an open-air market with 80 pitches.
In a letter accompanying the application, the applicant's agent noted that the land was owned by the borough council, which had agreed to let it to Excrest, subject to planning permission being obtained. It was later explained that there was space for 220 cars to be packed, with an access point from the entry road to the district shopping centre, which includes a large Tesco supermarket. The application did not say on which two days of the week the market would open—this would be decided later.
The local planning authority then consulted various bodies about the proposal. They received a direction of refusal from the Mid Glamorgan county engineer and surveyor in the following terms:
The development would result in a material increase in the volume of traffic entering routes A473 and A4119 and leaving route A473 and be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic using the aforementioned classified highways.
Those familiar with the area will know that the application and the later appeal relate to an island site surrounded by the two main roads mentioned by the county engineer and the internal road serving the district shopping centre. In response to public notices, a large number of local residents wrote to the borough council expressing their opposition to the proposal. Some of them submitted a petition. Objections also came from the Tesco and Homeworld stores, which felt that very severe traffic and parking problems could occur if the permission were granted.
After due deliberation, the borough council decided to refuse permission. The notice of refusal, which was issued on 15 April 1985, contained four reasons, the first of which gave effect to the county engineer's direction. The second and third reasons, also suggested by the county engineer,


related to lack of adequate car parking and possible danger to pedestrians. The final reason given was that the proposal was considered to be detrimental to the residential amenities of occupiers living in the vicinity of the site.
On 29 July 1985, the applicant appealed to the Secretary of State and indicated that it wished to exercise its right to be heard by a planning inspector. On a point of procedure, I should explain that, generally speaking, appeals against a refusal of planning permission are prescribed by regulations for determination by an inspector. My right hon. Friend, of course, has the power to direct that a planning appeal should be determined by him rather than by an inspector, but that power is used sparingly, where for instance, the proposal is for significant development or development of at least regional or national importance. This appeal was not considered to come within any other criteria for recovering jurisdiction over an appeal and so it was left to an inspector to determine. The decision in such cases is the inspector's alone.
Agreement was reached between the parties in November 1985 that a local inquiry into the appeal would be held in Pontypridd, commencing on 18 March 1986, the earliest date convenient to everyone. A Welsh Office letter to the borough council enclosed a copy of a notice of the inquiry and asked the council to give information about it to owners and occupiers of nearby property and to others who were considered by the council to be affected by the proposed development. The letter also indicated the Department's view that the press should normally be notified of local inquiries. I have no reason to believe that the council did not act accordingly. Indeed, correspondence received at this time indicated that the appeal was adequately advertised in accordance with standard procedure.
The inquiry opened as arranged on 18 March 1986. It was resumed on 24 and 25 April and again on 8 and 9 May. A great many documents were submitted to the inspector, including a letter from the hon. Member for Pontypridd, dated 17 December 1985. I have already given the hon. Gentleman a specific assurance in correspondence that this letter was taken into account by the inspector in arriving at his decision, and I am happy to repeat that assurance now. Indeed the letter, although not specifically listed, is contained in the bundle of documents numbered 16 by the inspector in his list of documentary evidence.
One of the matters raised in that letter was the special attention that should be paid to the needs of disabled people living at the Maestrisant home—the John Groom complex to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—a point which the hon. Gentleman came back to in his letter of 10 September 1986. In that letter, he said that he did not believe that this matter
was at all properly conducted and considered at the Inquiry".
While I accept that it was not specifically referred to in the council's refusal notice or in the decision letter of the inspector, the inspector was aware of the home's existence, and had regard to it in arriving at his decision. Reference to it is contained in the documents of evidence which are part of the public record and it is, of course, covered by the general reference to concern expressed by local residents in paragraphs 9 and 20 of the inspector's letter.
The hon. Gentleman made a further point in his second letter relating to the absence of any comment from the

police authority about the application. As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my letter of 6 November last, it is entirely for the local planning authority to decide who needs to be consulted at the application stage. Official advice about the display of site notices and the scope for consultation was given in Welsh Office circular 134/73, which has stood the test of time and is still Government policy. If the police authority was not aware of the application for an open-air market, I can only suggest again that the hon. Gentleman should approach the borough council for an explanation.
At the appeal stage, a site notice was displayed and all the standard procedures were followed. As I said earlier, the council was reminded that the press should normally be notified of the arrangements for holding local inquiries. Certainly, I note that there were reporters present from two local newspapers. The inquiry was adjourned twice and, in accordance with the rules governing procedures to be followed at inquiries, the details of the reopening date and venue were announced by the inspector before each adjournment. In view of this, and the fact that the inquiry lasted for five days spread over a long period, I find it difficult to understand the suggestion that local people were not aware of it. With all this in mind, I find it hard to accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that people did not have an adequate opportunity to give evidence to the inspector.
Another point which the hon. Gentleman made was that another market operator had decided to hold his market on a Wednesday, one of the days mentioned in the permission given to Excrest. That decision by the market operator in question, who was not party to the appeal, has no bearing on the planning merits of the matter we are considering tonight, as the observations of the inspector in this or any other case do not, of course, bind persons not a party to the applications.

Mr. John: I apologise for interrupting; I realise that this is an Adjournment debate. That is not the point that I was making. The point I made was that the inspector specifically took account of the unwisdom of having two open-air markets on the same day and thought that he had avoided it. It now turns out that on one of the two days for which he gave permission another market is already open, so we will have the very thing that he counselled against.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that inspectors hearing appeals can deal only with situations as they find them at the time. If circumstances change afterwards, that is not a matter that can lead to a reopening of an appeal decision.
I turn now to the inspector's decision on 22 July 1986. As far as procedures are concerned, I have carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's remarks but I ant not satisfied that there is any reason to alter the view I expressed during Question Time in the House on 8 December in response to his supplementary question, which is that I am not aware of any shortcomings in the procedures which were followed in this case.
The inspector's decision to grant planning permission for the use of this land as an open-air market for a period of four years was one for him alone to take, on the merits of the particular case. Planning legislation provides that an inspector must have regard to
the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.


He must, of course, give reasons for each decision. The expression "material consideration" brings me to the question of planning policies—which are for the most part to be found in departmental circulars—and their relevance to the Excrest appeal.
I do not propose to read out all of the reasons given by the inspector in his letter of 22 July last. That letter is a public document which has been made freely available and it has to be left to speak for itself. Any impartial observer reading the letter would, I believe, be impressed with the thorough way in which the inspector approached his task. It is apparent from the second paragraph of the decision letter that the question of access and traffic conditions at Talbot Green was one of the primary concerns of the inspector. He considered that one of the main issues was whether the additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements likely to be generated by the proposed open-air market would have so serious an impact on the existing traffic conditions as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.
After weighing all the evidence on traffic and highway matters and observing the traffic flows at the site on the five days during which the inquiry was held, he formed the opinion that any increase in traffic congestion during the morning and evening peak flow periods at Talbot Green roundabout would be most undesirable and would not be in the best interests of the local community and road users. He referred to the traffic circulation pattern on the Newpark housing estate in which a home for the elderly is situated, and to the fact that the estate is served by a one-way traffic system in from the A473 Talbot road and out on to the A4119 highway. The question of access for emergency service vehicles was raised at the inquiry by both written and oral submission for consideration by the inspector in reaching his decision.
The inspector reached his conclusion that if market trading is restricted to between the hours of 9 am and 4 pm, and was permitted only on Wednesday and Thursdays, it would not generate customer traffic that would significantly intensify the traffic problems that occurred during the peak hour flows at the Talbot Green roundabout.
I note that there is concern about the risk of cars parking on both sides of the road but it will be seen from paragraph 5 of the inspector's decision letter that a car

park for 100 cars is proposed for market customers and that the whole of the field adjoining the proposed market stall area could be used, if required, to cater for around 220 car spaces. The use of the field for non-operational car parking has been reserved by condition No. 9 of the planning consent.
These, then, were the inspector's conclusions on the operational aspects of the proposed development. He also dealt at some length with the implications of local and national policies. There is no time for me to go into all of these but I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Welsh Office circular 38/85, which emphasises that there is always a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, having regard to all material considerations, unless that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. In the last analysis, each decision involves a balancing act, setting one argument against another and trying to arrive at a fair decision.
During his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed Talbot Green bypass. I think it would be helpful if I make it clear that the Welsh Office has not reached a decision about the principle and merits of the proposal. I assure him that it will be considered for grant along with other schemes in Wales if Mid Glamorgan county council include it, as I believe it intends to, in its bid for transport supplementary grant for 1988–89.
The hon. Gentleman has, of course, received a copy of the inspector's decision. With that letter the parties received a leaflet explaining the procedure for challenging the decision in the High Court on a point of law. The period of six weeks within which such a challenge has to be made has long expired. As I have already explained in correspondence, once a decision on an appeal has been made, neither the Secretary of State nor his inspector has any further jurisdiction.
I have done my best in this debate to cover all the detailed points which the hon. Gentleman has gone to some trouble to raise in his remarks. I appreciate that my response does not meet his wishes but I must emphasise that this is essentially a local matter which an inspector was perfectly competent to deal with, and that even after listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech as I have done this evening, I see no justification for questioning either the inspector's judgment or his handling of the inquiry. Certainly there is no question of re-opening the inquiry or of taking action to revoke the decision.

Orders of the Day — Drugs (Wales)

Mr. Keith Raffan: I welcome the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to discuss the drugs crisis and particularly its Welsh dimension, a crisis which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has rightly described as
the most serious peace-time threat to our national well being.
The number of drug addicts registered with the Home Office is currently rising at the rate of 25 per cent. a year, and the figure currently stands at more than 9,000. In north Wales in 1978 there were 292 offences relating to drugs, none of which involved heroin. In 1984 there were 956 such offences, half of which involved heroin.
Even the Home Office admits that the figures for registered addicts must be multiplied by five to give an accurate and real picture. Others working in the field go as far as to claim that the figures must be mutliplied by a factor of 10 to get close to the mark. Mr. Dave Turner, the co-ordinator of the Standing Committee on Drug Abuse, estimates the total to be between 60,000 and 70,000.
The serious problem in north Wales is worsened by the fact that the heroin epidemic has raged for five years in the Wirral area, adjacent to my constituency. The heroin problem there is second only to that in Glasgow and it is three times worse than the average for a United Kingdom borough.
In Birkenhead—known locally as "smack city"—a quarter of 16 to 24-year-olds have some involvement with heroin, with "chasing the dragon". Other areas in Merseyside may be as little as 18 months behind the Wirral and parts of north Wales not far behind that.
The scale of the problem is also revealed by the record number of 30,500 drug seizures by Customs and police in 1985. That figure was 8 per cent. higher than the 1984 figure, which, in its turn, was 9 per cent. up on the 1983 figure. However, and this is an extremely important point, the continuing low price and high quality of heroin shows that the available supply on the street has not been dented to any considerable extent. The rule of thumb is that for every seizure nine go undetected. The incentive for traffickers is huge in spite of the passing in the last Session of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
A kilo of cocaine worth £5,000 in Bolivia is worth as much as £180,000 on the streets of the United Kingdom. As if the situation is not already serious enough, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has warned of the new threat approaching our islands, namely, the threat of cocaine. The lucrative American market for that drug is already reaching saturation point. The danger of cocaine is multiplied many fold through the use of "crack", the cheaper, more immediately powerful and more addictive form of pure cocaine.
The drugs problem cannot be narrowly defined. It affects many Whitehall Departments: the Home Office, with its responsibility for the police, the Treasury, with its responsibility for Customs, the Department of Health and Social Security, with its responsibility for treatment, and the Department of Education and Science, with its responsibility for education. Of course, in addition, it affects the two territorial Departments, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office.
Two years ago the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs was set up to co-ordinate Government strategy and

action. That was an eminently wise decision. The Government have taken strong action to deal with the two dimensions of the problem, supply and demand. I pay tribute to the Government for their efforts to stem the supply of drugs into this country through their contribution of £3·4 million to the United Nations scheme aimed at the eradication of opium in Pakistan and its contribution of £1·5 million to reduce coca production in South America. Although there has been a sharp fall in the amount of heroin coming from Pakistan, large quantities are still coming through India.
After the eradication at source, the second block is at our borders, first through the Customs and Excise. The Government have acted here—although they have come in for much unjustified criticism. The number of customs officers whose main priority is drug detection will by April this year be 500 up on the April 1985 figure. The number of specialist intelligence investigators in the same period will have risen from 121 to 297.
Last year, we saw the clear success of the Government's actions with the breaking up of more than 80 trafficking gangs, most recently and perhaps most dramatically, with Operation Fulman, which broke up the Dye drug ring.
But despite the increase in customs officers, heroin is still coming in in large quantities, mainly through freight imports rather than personal luggage, and that makes it particularly difficult to detect. Organised crime syndicates are estimated to be making more than £500 million a year from drug trafficking. With the cocaine threat looming, the Government will have to consider putting more resources into the customs service. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has given reassurances that he is keeping a close watch on the number of customs officers and will not hesitate to decide to increase them if necessary.
The block at our borders depends not only on customs but on the police. There are only 60 on the drugs wing within the regional crime squad covering the whole of the north-west and only 10 covering North Wales. In London, where half of the country's hard drug problems are concentrated, there are only 57 officers specialising in drug offences, although that is 19 up on the 1985 total. More resources are needed. This would be an investment in the health of the nation, and we would do well to follow the example of the President of the United States and his anti-abuse programme.
A further way to try to stem the supply of drugs is through deterrence. In the Session before last I was able to steer through the House the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act as a private Member's measure. It was supported by all parties, indeed by all factions within parties, including hon. Members from the Militants to the moderates in the Labour Party and from the arid dries to the saturated Wets in our party. It had universal support. That measure increased the maximum sentence for trafficking in hard drugs from 14 years to life. That was followed in the last Session by the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, which will enable the confiscation of assets of those convicted of drug trafficking.
The effectiveness of that measure in the face of the sophistication and professionalism of the criminals trafficking in drugs, particularly in the laundering of the assets of their evil trade, depends on international co-operation. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office emphasised that point when he chaired the meeting of Community Ministers on drugs misuse on


20 October 1986. I believe that there is a need for international co-operation beyond the confines of Europe, and I look forward to further progress on a United Nations convention.
I have discussed in some detail past efforts and current measures by the Government to stem the supply of hard drugs, but we have to face the fact that they are still coming into the country in large quantities. The Government are also rightly trying to remove demand—this is the second dimension, after supply—and to dissuade young people from experimenting with drugs through their advertising campaign. Some £2 million was spent in 1985 on anti-heroin publicity and a further £2 million is being spent in the current financial year on the second phase of that campagn, aimed particularly at parents. I know that £200,000 of that campaign publicity money has been devoted specifically to Wales. Market research shows that the campaign is being successful. Before the campaign was started, 83 per cent. of youngsters said that they would reject an offer of heroin and now that has risen by 10 per cent. to 93 per cent.
All this is encouraging, but there is still a need for more localised advertising campaigns. Professor Geoffrey Pearson, the professor of social work at Middlesex polytechnic, has compiled a report on drugs in the north of England, and he has questioned whether "a blanket advertising campaign" is the best way to deal with the problem. He feels that the Government's campaign should be more geared to local needs, and this has been endorsed by Dr. Howard Parker of Liverpool university, following his work in the Wirral area. I believe that there is room for a distinctly Welsh initiative to put us in the vanguard of education on drug misuse.
During the debate on AIDS on 21 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced the strengthening of the Health Education Council by reconstituting it as a special health authority with increased resources. This special authority will assume the current responsibilities of the Health Education Council and will be given the major executive responsibility for public education on AIDS. It will be an integral part of the National Health Service within England.
During that debate my right hon. Friend said that the exact relationship of the new agency to health education arrangements in Wales had yet to be settled and he indicated that arrangements may vary in different parts of the United Kingdom. This gives us a great opportunity. The increased resources, the flexibility of the new health education arrangements and the tragic connection between the injection of drugs and AIDS gives us the opportunity, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take, for further health education measures on drug misuse in Wales.
Such an initiative should start in our schools with formalised drug education classes on the harmful effects of drug misuse and on the techniques of resisting what is called "peer pressure"—the pressure from older pupils who say to younger ones, "Come on, try it." That initiative must involve teachers, parent-teacher associations and the police.
I believe that it is worth looking at the example of the United States Department of Education's campaign, "What works: schools without drugs".
In the United States, 72 per cent. of primary and secondary pupils now receive some sort of drugs education. One of the more comprehensive programmes is DARE, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, which was begun in Los Angeles three years ago and has since been copied in 62 school districts in the United States. The programme allows for police officers to go into schools on a regular basis for a period of 45 minutes to one hour. They go into a class, with the teacher still there, perhaps up to 17 or 18 times in the academic year.
The education programme must be central to any attack on drug misuse. As Tom Adams, the national director of the "Just Say No" programme in the United States, has put it:
The kids under 10 in the States are the only group in which non-use of drugs and alcohol and tobacco is the norm.
We, too, in Britain, must grasp the opportunity to keep that age group free of drugs as they enter the temptation-ridden teens.
When dissuasion and prevention tragically fail, we have to fall back on treatment and rehabilitation. An extra £5 million has been allocated by the DHSS to health authorities in England from 1986 to expand the treatment of drug misuse. That is on top of the £17 million already available for local projects such as telephone help lines and counselling services.
I hope that when the Minister replies he can give the comparable figures for Wales. I must confess to being unhappy about the way in which the Government are funding treatment and rehabilitation in Wales at present. In England and Scotland, short-term pump-priming funds have been established, but not in Wales. Instead, the Welsh Office has extended the scope of existing funds for developments in mental health care provided through the NHS to embrace schemes to combat misuse of drugs.
That has aroused the suspicion of health authorities that it is not new money which is being made available but diverted money. I know that the Government have taken the extra scope into consideration and increased the fund from £1 million to £1·5 million, but only £215,000 of that has been specifically allocated for drug misuse. In 1985 in England and Scotland the figures were significantly higher—£6 million and £2 million respectively.
I agree strongly with the Government that primary responsibility for the provision and development of treatment and rehabilitation services must remain at local level. Health authorities will be willing to develop such services if they are given central funding, but they are less willing, almost unwilling, to give priority to combating drug misuse in competition with other local priorities. The Welsh Office should reconsider the funding of drug treatment within the Principality.
In conclusion, William Jones once said:
The deadliest enemies of nations are not their foreign foes; they always dwell within their own borders.
Drug misuse is the most insidious, all-pervasive, of enemies. It knows no boundaries of class or geography. It is no longer an inner city, a city, an urban, or even a suburban problem; it is prevalent throughout our villages and countryside.
As Brian Arbery, chief executive of the charity Turning Point which runs the Hungerford drug project, says:
The current Government has done far more than any other in giving money and high priority to dealing with drug abuse".
This debate follows on from yesterday afternoon's debate and it is worth pointing out, sadly in the absence of any


Opposition Members, that the Government have once again been in the vanguard of dealing with this national crisis, just as they have been in the vanguard of helping old-age pensioners in the severely cold weather that we have experienced of late. That has already proved that this Government is a caring Government.
Sadly—the Minister may agree with me—the Government sometimes fall short on presentation of what they are doing. That is an understandable mistake because we are doing so much, but we must broadcast what we have done even more. I hope that I can count on the Minister's support in doing that, particularly in the Principality. If we can get the message across, we shall show, as Lord Woolton once said of another Conservative Government: "We not only cope; we care." I know that the Minister may follow that last point in his opening sentence, but I hope that he will also acknowledge, perhaps as a conditional clause of that opening sentence, that he recognises, as I recognise, that if we are to defeat this deadliest of enemies still more must be done.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has called this debate tonight. He has gone to considerable lengths and trouble to address the House and to draw attention to an important subject. I particularly welcome the initiative because I share his and the public's concern that new threats to public health do not deflect our determination to defeat the racketeers and pushers.
At the same time, we must do all in our power to help those suffering from drug misuse and those who are in danger or being ensnared by it. That resolve remains undiminished in Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The effort that forms part of the overall strategy that is not within my departmental responsibilities is nevertheless of direct benefit to Wales, particularly in reducing supplies and thereby protecting our people from its evils.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the inter-ministerial group on the misuse of drugs under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I serve on that group and its work is challenging and extremely important. The work we do in Wales is in the context of the overall strategy co-ordinated by my hon. Friend and I am closely involved in it. There is a comprehensive and developing Government strategy aimed at reducing supplies, improving international action against traffickers, stepping up deterrence, improving the security of illicit drugs and assisting prevention and treatment.
The Welsh Office's place in that relates to health education, treatment, rehabilitation and the security of drugs. Notably, the Department has participated fully in the national public information and education campaign, including the production of media material and leaflets in the Welsh language as well as in English which have been widely distributed to parents and young people. Extensive video training and education aids, for example, have been distributed to professional workers and schools, a high proportion of whom have accepted a free copy of the double tape video.
Those national educational activities have greatly assisted specific Welsh Office action which takes the following forms. First, at the Welsh Office's request, each

county in Wales now has an active drugs advisory committee led by the local district health authority and composed of all the statutory professional and voluntary groups interested in combating drug misuse. The Department has kept in close touch with those committees and my impression is that for the most part they are working well together, particularly in Clwyd under the chairmanship of Michael Griffith.
Local planning is the second important aspect. Each drug advisory committee has been asked by the Welsh Office to produce a strategic plan for tackling drug misuse in each county. All plans have been submitted in draft and the Welsh Office has produced detailed comments on each. The counties are now in the process of preparing final versions and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to provide a firm basis for concerted local action over the next three to five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn referred to improved educational resources, and in the current financial year and the next some £150,000 will be made available to each county in Wales. With regard to health education, the Welsh Office has funded the appointment in each county of a health education officer specialising in drug misuse. They will be encouraging activities in the community aimed at alerting young people to the dangers of drug misuse.
A significant investment has been made in providing advice, guidance and counselling to people suffeing from or in danger of drug misuse. Particular initiatives include centres at Swansea, Bangor, Bridgend, Cardiff and Newport.
As regards treatment, the emphasis has been on education and counselling. In the years ahead, one can expect the development of clinical treatment facilities. Community drug teams have been established, with Welsh Office funding, in Clwyd and Cardiff and they are the out-patient arms of hospital services.
We attach great importance to crisis intervention. We are concerned to provide easy access to help for those people and their relatives and friends who experience a drug misuse crisis. Welsh Office funding has enabled a nationwide Welsh drugs line to operate 24 hours a day. It reaches out to every town, village and hamlet. Although it is still in its early stages, the drugs line handles some 200 calls a month from all over Wales.
We believe that the voluntary sector complements the work of the statutory authorities. It is often in the best position to cater for the needs of drug misusers. In virtually every county the Welsh Office has funded the provision of voluntary sector services. In that regard, the leadership shown by the churches in north Wales and their work with the statutory authorities is especially encouraging. They are being helped by the Department.
All these developments are important in the context of national co-ordination. It is important to ensure that each drugs advisory committee shares its experiences—that is helpful in providing services—and that they co-operate to solve mutual problems. It is also important to ensure that the Welsh Office is well briefed on the experiences and views of those working in the field. Service planners must have ready access to information on Government initiatives.
All those functions are performed by the Welsh committee on drug misuse that met for the first time last month and I was pleased to attend that meeting. The committee is chaired by Dr. John Evans. It has a wide and


expert membership, including the secretaries of the Clwyd drug advisory committee and the Clwyd council on drug misuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn went to considerable length to talk about funding. The comprehensive range of initiatives has relied upon the energy and commitment of a relatively small number of people in each county, and I should like to pay tribute to the effort that they have made. Their work has been made possible by the considerable financial investment from the Welsh Office. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the past two financial years, the Department has spent almost £1·5 million on national and local initiatives. Much of that money has enabled local services to be provided that are of direct help to drug misusers, their families and friends.
The Department's commitment will continue. Currently we are considering further requests for the

funding of local projects, including schemes in Clwyd. I hope to make an announcement about that when the detailed appraisal has been completed and the Welsh committee on drug misuse has been consulted.
In addition to training and information material for teachers, parents and pupils, the Welsh Office has made available £150,000 from the education support grant in 1986–87 and 1987–88 for the appointment of a special adviser on drug misuse in each county. They will be encouraging and assisting the work of teachers in schools.
I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Welsh Office remains fully committed to the Government's fight against drug misuse. It is working closely with a wide range of service providers to ensure that young people and their parents are aware of drug misuse and that those entrapped by this evil are given the help that they need and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o'clock.